Preamble

Morning Sitting

Mr. SPEAKERresumed the Chair at Ten o'clock a.m.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING SUBSIDIES

10.0 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I beg to move,
That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: It may be for the convenience of the House if with this we take the Motion,
That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.

Mr. Hoy: It may be helpful if I recall the general background to these Orders. I dealt at some length with the economic position of the industry in the debate on 15th May last. In 1967, the deep sea catch was maintained at the average level of about 520,000 tons achieved in 1965 and 1966. But the value declined from £41·2 million in 1966 to £39·4 million in 1967.
Inshore landings of white fish declined from the peak of over 270,000 tons in 1966 to 230,000 tons in 1967, owing to a reduction in Scottish landings. The value of the catch however was unchanged at about £15 million.
Herring landings declined slightly in quantity and value but shellfish landings increased substantially from £3·6 million in 1966 to £4·0 million in 1967. In the first five months of 1968 landings have continued to increase, but the average value of white fish has declined still further.
The volume of imports of fresh, chilled and frozen fish was about the same in 1967 as in 1966—about 120,000 tons—but the value declined by roughly £1·0 million to about £20 million. The reduction in the value of imports was therefore proportionately greater than the reduction in the value of our own catches.
In the first five months of 1968 there has been a small reduction in both the volume and the value of imports compared with the same period last year. Although total imports have shown little change, imports of frozen fillets from Norway, Denmark and Sweden have increased and are now in excess of the level of 24,000 tons a year which was expected to be the maximum when they were given E.F.T.A. treatment in 1959. We have accordingly invited our partners to discuss the position with us to see what can be done to moderate the increase. These discussions are to commence on 15th August.
More detailed figures on these and other aspects of the industry's performance are given as usual in the Annual Report of the White Fish Authority and the Departmental statistics. Hon. Members will also find a good deal of information in the published evidence submitted to the Fisheries Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Agriculture.
I should like in passing to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and his colleagues on producing their report so speedily. It would not be proper for me to comment on their recommendations before they have been considered by the main Committee. But one recommendation at least has been met. We have announced our decisions on future aid to the industry.
Before coming to the measures now proposed, I remind the House that the value of existing support is not to be under-rated, though I fear it sometimes is. The total value of cash assistance from the Fisheries Departments in the financial year 1967–68 was no less than £7 million. Of this £3·7 million was grants, £2·8 million was operating subsidies and about £0·5 million was loans.
On 15th May I announced the removal of all restrictions on the number of grants available for new vessels, and an effective increase in the maximum rate of loan for inshore vessels to 45 per cent. as long as grants are at 45 per cent.; and 50 per cent. when the grants revert to 40 per cent. at the end of this year, maintaining the 90 per cent. There will be no limit on the funds available for these loans. These arrangements apply from 16th May last.
On 8th July, my right hon. Friend announced our new subsidy policy for the deep sea fleet and promised that legislation would be introduced early next session. He also outlined the arrangements for subsidies under existing legislation to the deep sea, inshore and herring fleets in the year commencing 1st August. These arrangements are set out in the Scheme now before the House.
I will deal first with the inshore and herring fleets. In the last three years, the increasing profitability of this section of the industry has enabled us to reduce the subsidies.
In 1967, the overall profitability of the fleet declined slightly from a little over £2 million in 1966 to a little under £2 million. This is still a reasonably good level of profit and, of course, much better than that of the trawler fleet. In these circumstances we have thought it right to maintain the subsidies at their existing level to encourage the further development of the fleet that we want to see.
For the deep sea trawler fleet of near, middle and distant water vessels the basic rates for the year are the maximum rates permitted by the 1962 Act. In addition, the maximum special rates of subsidy that can be paid within the limit of £350,000 permitted by the Act will be payable for the first six months of the year at rates proportionate to the basic rates, to all deep sea trawlers.
By the early part of 1969 we hope to be in a position to make payments under the new system announced by my right hon. Friend, and the sums the House is now invited to approve will be set against the total sum payable to the industry under this new system for the year beginning 1st August, 1968.
As my right hon. Friend explained to the House, the amount of the annual subsidy to the deep sea fleet will be calculated by adjusting a basic figure of £2 million. The industry will receive, in addition to this £2 million, half of any amount by which its profits are less than £4 million. The maximum annual subsidy will be £4 million and will not be allowed to result in an annual level of profits plus subsidy exceeding £7 million.
The distribution of the subsidy will be related to the operating efficiency of vessels and this principle has been welcomed by the industry The detailed

arrangements for measuring efficiency for this purpose and for the payment of the subsidy are now being discussed with the industry. Two meetings have already taken place and progress has been good. Further meetings, including a meeting with the Transport and General Workers' Union, will be arranged as necessary, and I hope that it will not be long before the arrangements are settled. We shall be able to give the House a fuller account of what is proposed when we come to fresh legislation. Meanwhile, I ask the House to give its approval to the present Order and Scheme.

10.10 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: We all wish to express our thanks to the Minister for his usual lucidity in introducing this Order and Scheme. May I recapitulate what I believe to be the fundamental issues behind them. First, there is the basic grant that we are debating, running from 1st August this year until 31st July next year. That is cut by 7½ per cent. These cuts are to be ended, as was announced by the Minister on 15th May, but they must continue until the new legislation is introduced which, I understand, we are to expect at the end of the year, presumably in the new Session.
Dealing with the special grant, I understand that the Minister said, that the whole of the amount, £350,000, is to be disbursed in the first six months of the year under discussion, and that all vessels in the deep sea fleet will attract this grant. This means that more vessels will get a grant and there will therefore, be less per vessel in certain classes. May I quote the sums in round figures to be sure that I have got them right? Taking the first class of vessels, 80 ft. to 110 ft., the Order allows a daily operating grant of £2 14s. The last time we debated an Order of this kind, in February this year, a few of these vessels received £5, and a year ago they received £9.
The next class, 110 ft. to 140 ft. will receive £3 18s. a day. Last February they received £7 a day and a year ago £4 10s. It is a net reduction per vessel, although I appreciate that more vessels attract the subsidy. Finally, 140 ft and over are to attract £4 10s. a day. Last February it was £8, and a year before £5. The grants for white fish and


herrings landed and for conversion to oil and meal, are to be exactly the same as in 1967.
Have I got the figure for the total operating subsidy that the Government have paid in 1967 correct? I understood that it was £1·3 million, but today the hon. Gentleman said something about £2·8 million. I was not clear whether that was for last year or for the forthcoming year.

Mr. Hoy: For the year past.

Mr. Wall: That is £2·8 million in the past 12 months. Can the Minister say what he expects will be paid in the next six months? It will obviously be more than the £2·8 million, but will it be £3 million or £4 million? Both sides of the House agree that there is a need for greater subsidies. The new Government measures will grant subsidies of £2 million to £4 million based on operating profits. As the Minister said, we cannot start payment until January next year. Will the payments then be based on the profitability of vessels operating this year —in other words, will it be paid a year back?

Mr. Hoy: As I said, it would be from 1st August.

Mr. Wall: We all agree that there is a world-wide depression in the fishing industry, and this has been worsened for this country because of the heavily subsidised foreign competition and because we are the largest open market in Europe and, excluding the United States, in the world. The Government have admitted that there are crisis conditions within the industry. On 15th May the hon. Gentleman gave three reasons for this. He said that it was due to adverse conditions of competition, the restriction of limits, foreign subsidies and so on; secondly the development of foreign coastal fisheries and the fact that their surplus supplies were being delivered to the British market, which was pretty well an open one; and thirdly he said that technical developments in the industry led to large stocks of frozen fish, particularly cod, being held.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), in the same debate, said:

This debate has clearly established that there is a desperate state in the distant water section of the industry…. It has also established the very low price levels that exist in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1968; Vol. 764, c. 1346.]
Since he made that statement I understand that price levels have dropped by nearly 10s. a kit in the following month. The problem is basically one of price rather than quality. I am not excluding the need for quality, because the quality, particularly of cod, can and should be improved. Basically the problem facing the industry is one of prices as there are plenty of good fish landed and unsold.
The B.T.F. has a voluntary minimum price scheme and reports that prices are undercut, dare I say it, from Scotland where there is no minimum price. I have a telegram which I received yesterday from an ex-president of the B.T.F. in Hull. He points out that owners have cut distant water landings to 15 days in order to improve the quality of the fish and he says that in spite of this top quality fish, something like 50 per cent. remains unsold in the Hull market. This applies equally in the other major ports.
In Hull, from January to June, this year over 250,000 kits of fish were unsold. Last Monday and Tuesday about 12,000 kits were unsold and therefore went to making fish meal and other purposes. This is not because of poor quality but because of low prices and undercutting. I want to quote two sentences from the telegram in which the ex-president says:
Enormous quantities of cheap fish quoted into English markets from Scotland and abroad…. It is impossible to sell 10-day Icelandic fish at 77s. 6d. a kit alongside the same article from Scotland at 29s. 6d.
I hardly dare, in this House, with the serried ranks of the Scots in front and behind me, criticise Scotland, but I should make the point that the distant water fleet support a minimum price scheme for all deep sea fish, near, middle and distant, but only catches 40 per cent. of this fish. The person who sends this telegram asks: Can this go on?
The average price of landings from B.T.F. vessels during the first four months of this year as compared with the same period last year has fallen. In March it was 21·4 per cent., April 3·7 per cent., May, 7·6 per cent. and June, 92 per cent. It is only fair to say that


we have had exactly the same story from Scotland. One official of the Scottish Trawlers Federation was quoted in theFish Trades Gazette as claiming that the drop in prices had cost the Scottish fishing industry over £350,000 in five months —a fall of 12·3 per cent. on the previous year and incidentally exactly the same amount as the special grants the Government are to disburse during the next six months.
This is a matter concerning both England and Scotland and I am sure that this will be developed at greater length by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We all accept that the industry is passing through a time of crisis. What have the Government proposed to meet this crisis? There have been criticisms, and I do not necessarily join in them, that their proposals are too little and too late. Criticism is made of the present measures because they deal with only six months, and will not solve the financial difficulties of the industry.
Against that we in the House know, although it is perhaps not so widely known throughout the country, that the Government cannot under existing legislation, disburse more than they are doing. But obviously the industry must have more next year, and from what the Minister said it seems clear that it will get it. Plainly we cannot decide whether the Government's future proposals are right or whether the amount of finance which it is proposed to inject into die industry is correct until we hear details of the legislation.
There is however more validity in the criticism of "too little, too late". The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will recall that on 15th May he said:
If the industry is suffering—and I do not deny it—that flows from the policy laid down by the hon. Gentleman's Government in 1962."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1968; Vol. 764, e. 1311.]
In answer to a Question from me on 26th June, he said:
The industry's present position is the direct result of the policy for which hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible…. We have changed it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1968; Vol. 767, c. 422.]
But have they? The Order and the Scheme make no change at all. I agree that it is coming, but it has not come yet. The trouble is that the Government have maintained a good policy for far

too long. When the policy was introduced, it fitted the conditions. But conditions have changed. If the Minister examines his speech, he will see that he admitted that. Limits, foreign landings and techniques have changed, but the Government's policy has not changed. It will not change, I understand, until we have the new legislation in November or December.
The Minister will remember that the review was announced at the end of 1964. After continual pressure, it was finally stated that it was hoped that the Government would be able to make a final statement at the end of 1967. We have had an announcement in July this year, three and a half years later. We are still debating the old system. The details of the new system have not yet been worked out. It is clear that in 1969 the industry will be dependent on payments on a scale which we have not yet determined to offset losses under the Order we are now debating. All I can do is to quote the conclusions published in the editorial of theFishing News on 12th July. The last paragraph is a true and fair summing up:
All this does not add up to a dynamic, clearly expressed policy for British fishing; nor does it offer hope of relief from competition due to unrestricted cheap imports of fish from the surpluses of other countries. But it does reveal that the inter-departmental inquiry produced something more than a suggestion that the Fleck policy was out-of-date".
we shall obviously reserve our opinion until we hear the full details of the Government's policy. I hope that they will not be a palliative, but will do permanent good to the industry.
Since the Minister mentioned the new scheme, I should like to refer briefly to it and to ask two questions which he may be able to answer. I understand that, under the new scheme subsidies will be linked with efficiency and profitability, which is obviously to the good. When the Minister announced the scheme, he referred to the industry's profitability and operating efficiency. What profitability does he mean? He will know that operating profit does not include depreciation or interest on capital. One can still make a considerable loss, although one has an operating profit. Will the scheme be based on an operating profit so defined, or on a profit which takes all factors into account? This makes a big difference to the industry.
Secondly, grants are to be based on the profitability of a vessel in the previous year. Vessels will attract grant next year on their profitability this year. This will introduce complications concerning crew-sharing arrangements. How will they be met? Will the crew be paid a bonus at the end of the year covering the previous year?
The success of the Government scheme will finally be judged on whether it attracts fresh investment into the industry. That is what is needed. I hope that the Minister will consider the new fisheries policy which is being produced by the European Economic Community. I do not say that it will fit our problems, but we should examine it very carefully and dovetail our policy into it as far as possible. I will not go into that point further because it does not come within the Order. However, we are interested to note that this month the E.E.C. has produced an official fisheries policy, and I hope that the Government will take cognisance of it.
It would be wrong if I were to omit to deal with the question of imports, because this threat lies behind all the subsidies which we are debating and it must be behind the success or failure of the Government's proposed new policy. In reply to me, the Minister said that direct fish imports amounted to about £21 million a year. He will agree that there are only two open markets in the world— the United States and this country. The United States market has contracted considerably, which leads European exporting countries to send their fish to this country. The subsidies in Norway have increased in one year from £6 million to £14 million. I understand that Denmark has promised Greenland £200 million, spread over 10 years, of which 75 per cent. is for establishing a fishing industry in that country. This is the kind of competition which we have to face.
That brings me to the announcement which the Minister made on 8th July, which he repeated today, that the Government are to have talks with our E.F.T.A. partners. Today, he referred to the Stockholm Agreement and the fact that the limit of 24,000 tons of imported fillets has been surpassed. Will the talks with our E.F.T.A. partners solely con-

cern the limit on fillets, or will the Government try to secure a gentlemen's agreement that surplus fish should not be dumped in this country? I accept that we cannot legislate against that, but I think that we should try to reach a gentlemen's agreement that fish landings should be limited.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of Recommendation No. 5 in the Report of the Fisheries Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Agriculture:
Quotas, levies and minimum import prices to protect the British industry should be seriously considered and the matter pursued energetically with the E.F.T.A. countries.
I hope that during the talks this subject will be raised. Incidentally, this matter has been considered, not only by the Fisheries Sub-Committee, but by the main Committee.
Finally, may I ask what discussions are taking place about a statutory minimum price scheme, which will have some effect on foreign imports as well as to provide floor price for the market? I appreciate that there are difficulties and that there is no unanimity in the industry on this point. We should be grateful for any information that the Minister has to give about it.
I have no doubt that we on this side of the House will support the Order and Scheme. We look forward to seeing the details of the new legislation. We hope that it will solve the problems of the industry and will not merely act as a palliative. I should like answers to four specific questions. First, can the Minister give us more details about the back payments—in other words, payments made in 1969 for this year's operations —and about how they will be worked out? Secondly, will he give details of the talks which the Government propose to have with the E.F.T.A. countries? Thirdly, will he give an assurance that he will consider the recommendation of the Fisheries Sub-Committee on quotas, levies and minimum import prices? Fourthly, will he tell us how the discussions on a statutory minimum price scheme are going?
I commend the Order as it stands, knowing that it is only a bridging operation until the new legislation is introduced at the end of the year.

10.29 a.m.

Mr. James Johnson: After the somewhat pugnacious opening of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) to a debate on what is usually a politically uncontrover-sial industry, may I begin on a happier note by thanking the Minister most sincerely for his felicitous words about myself and my colleagues on the Select Committee on Agriculture. We were given a job to do, covering a wide field, in a short time. We hoped to get the Report out before the statement made by the Secretary of State. We failed by about 12 hours. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he had already adopted Recommendation No. 5 in the Committee's Report concerning early action in the matter of aid or subsidy.
We have begun this morning speaking about the new Statutory Instruments, from which I find that there are no subsidy changes for the inshore fleet. I did not expect any subsidy changes, because one of our difficulties in the deep sea fishing section, certainly on Hum-berside and at other auctions, is that we are getting a good supply of first-class cheap fish caught by first-class vessels and men of the inshore fleet. In Hull, this now amounts to at least 20 per cent. of the fish which is sold on the market. Please, therefore, do not let us always talk about competition overseas—this is at home.
Sections of our fishing fleet are doing well, and I welcome this. I welcome the fact that our inshore fleet within 12 miles is doing well and is, therefore, thereby less of a charge on the national Exchequer.
Having said that, I turn to what I believe to be the nub of the debate. The Explanatory Note to the Order dealing with the aggregate amount of grants states that the object of the White Fish and Herring Industries Acts, 1953 and 1957, as amended by the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1962, is to promote
the landing in the United Kingdom of a continuous and plentiful supply of white: fish and herring".
At the moment there is no doubt that we are getting that plentiful supply of fish. This is one of our headaches— we are getting too much.
I also have with me the telegram, which was quoted earlier, which has been sent on behalf of the Hull vessel owners. I have no doubt that it is symptomatic of the feelings of other vessel owners in other ports. I do not know what is meant by the B.T.F. policy quoted by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) a short while ago. It was a pity that we had this note injected, because in the industry this question of subsidy has always been a non-party issue. I would have hoped that the vessel owners would have been thinking some time ago about their policy and I look forward very much to hearing something about this new official policy which the vessel owners are putting forward. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be as intrigued as I am to know what is meant by that policy.
The gist of the Hull telegram this morning is that we are catching good quality fish which we should be selling to our home market. This is not being done. The difficulty, however, is that we have excessive landings. I do not altogether accept the use of the word "dumping" in this context. I was glad to hear the Minister say that on 15th August my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is to speak to his colleagues in E.F.T.A, about the whole matter of what I term excessive landings. I find it difficult to justify this as dumping under the G.A.T.T. provisions. It is excessive landing of fish at low prices, because there is this over-catching malaise about the North-East Atlantic—in fact, the whole world; and the Norwegians, like ourselves, are catching quantities of fish which they find difficult to sell. They land it for sale in Hull dock and elsewhere at the same price level as they attempt to sell it at Cuxhaven, Norway and elsewhere. The excessive amount of fish which comes into this country is one of our big difficulties. I have no doubt that the Minister knows this as well as we do.
While there has been, I understand, no ban on imports, I look forward to tenacious and tough talks by our Ministers on this matter with our E.F.T.A. colleagues concerning what I believe to be the biggest single factor in our present difficulties: the amount of fish which is landed for the port auctions.
The debate today is being held in about as gloomy an atmosphere as the similar


debate 12 months ago. It was worse for the industry in the sense that the figures show that besides the large quantities of fish which are being landed, the prices are something like 8 or 10 per cent. lower than they were a year ago. The industry, owners and workers, has had a particularly tough time in this matter and it is, perhaps, not an unhappy thing that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is the Member for Grimsby and is absolutely on the inside in the whole question of landings and prices of fish. Our home market is virtually unprotected in this direction.
I believe that there are undeniable reasons against our becoming dependent upon imported food. I also, as someone who was born on an island, have my feelings about turning our backs on the sea. I do not think that the Government intend to do this. Their new proposals give the lie to anything which has been said in the past in that respect.
There can be no denial that there is to be a sharp increase in the subsidy. For the next three years it will be set at £2 million median. I have some figures which show what would have been the difference had we been working the proposed new subsidy scheme over the last year or two. Even in 1965, which was a good year, when the industry made something like £4 million, the industry would have benefited by at least another £¼ million under the Government's new proposals. In 1966 it would have benefited by an additional £800,000 in 1967 with £1,500,000. Therefore, whatever may be the unknown new policy of the B.T.F., no one can quibble at the measures which the Government are taking.
It is, however, a little ironic that the payments are to be made for five years. I view this as a holding operation. If the industry is to survive, it must become more efficient. That is why we are tying these subsidies to efficiency and profitability, and I am glad to say that the industry as a whole welcomes this. Both the producers and those of us who are legislating want an efficient and profitable fleet and one which will pay its way.
I am glad to see that a welcome has been given by the owners to the Governments proposals. I know that at least one

leader in Hull has not done so, but he is alone. I believe these measures to be good. On the whole, they have had, if not a huge welcome, a cautious welcome by the leaders of the industry, who are aware of the Government's difficulties.
It would also be ironic, however, if in our efforts to make the fleet more efficient, the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, after putting in its appearance, were then to advise making the changes in the structure of the fleet which were rejected a year or two ago by the Monopolies Commission. There need to be mergers in the industry. This is the pattern of national industry outside. I believe it to be beneficial that some units which at present are not efficient must slowly be phased out. I do not want to go into the details of oil burners, the age of vessels, vessels losing £4 per day or £64 each day they are at sea. I believe the industry will be made efficient following this Government's measures, which will come into operation as quickly as the owners and the industry can get them operating.
But then one comes to the 64,000 dollar questions: do we want a home-based fishing industry, and, if so, are we prepared to pay for it? This was the big issue which came before us when we were asking questions of witnesses before the Sub-Committee. The answer, of course, is a categorical Yes, and it would be sheer defeatism if we were to allow our fleet to go. Nevertheless, we always come back to this question of State aid. I believe that in the fishing industry we should attempt to get away in future, if we possibly can, from any aid, despite what is being done by Norway, by Denmark and other competitors. I look, in the future, to a smaller fleet, a more efficient fleet, but better ships for catching. I am forced to the conclusion that, as in the mining industry, if we close inefficient pits, we have fewer miners, so also if we dispense with inefficient vessels we shall have a smaller number of fishermen —this is inevitable—and a more efficient but smaller fleet. However, there will be better and safer working conditions for the fishermen, and there will be better pay for them. This is something we should look forward to in a more optimistic sense than possibly some people have done.
In making a comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Haltemprice, I look


at the memorandum submitted by the B.T.F. to the Select Committee. There is no doubt whatever that the facts speak for themselves. In paragraph 1 on page 40 of our Report hon. Members will find these words:
As a result of an international recession in fish markets, first-hand prices of fish have been at depressed levels for two years now. The depression has severely hit every fishing industry which is, in more than a very small way, exposed to the highly variable winds of international trade in fish. The general position is reflected in the fact that trawling companies the world over are ready to sell any or all of their vessels, but there are no buyers and, broadly speaking, nobody is placing orders for new vessels.
I accept this; this is a fact; but, as I said a few moments ago, we must have a more efficient fleet, even if smaller, to stand on its own feet in these difficult times.
We interviewed the White Fish Authority, whose chief executive put his finger on this whole matter of the future of the fishing industry and the help the Government are giving and what the industry has to look forward to in the future. It is wholly a question of confidence in the fishing industry, and whether in the future our fishermen and owners can look forward to something worth while. This is what he said:
I think above all owners are wanting, before they invest the very large sums of money that are called for when they are building vessels these days, to get a view a good long way ahead. This has been sorely lacking over the past few years. After all, if you are building a vessel which costs £600,000 and it has got a 15 year life, it is a 15 year view that you want of its future potential profitability. This has been gravely lacking. I am bound to say that I have always been puzzled that no Government Bill has looked a longish way ahead on a matter as politically uncontroversial as the fishing industry.
Earlier we had some exchanges across the Table, but now we can say we have a Government who are looking ahead. This was not done in the early 'sixties by a previous Government. Now, for the first time, it is possible to look forward to a future where the fishermen who catch the fish, and the owners who are investing in their boats, can look forward to a better prospect. I believe this, and I welcome this debate this morning.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope to be able to call all the fishermen who seek to

catch my eye. Hon. Members can help by making their speeches reasonably brief. We have begun very well.

10.46 a.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I shall do my best to follow your injunction, Mr. Speaker. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) when he is talking about fishing because he has great experience of this industry, and, if I may, I will echo what has already been said about the remarkable job which the Sub-Committee, of which he was the Chairman, has done.
I think he often sounds the theme that when we on this side criticise we are, he says, bringing politics into it. We have the job to criticise, and if we find that the Minister deserves criticism, it is up to us to give it. Parliament at the moment is very much criticised for being behind the times, but in the warnings which have come from both sides of the House about the fishing industry we have been ahead of the times. I have been rereading the debate which took place on 26th July last year when the hon. Gentleman talked about inspissate gloom, and it was pretty grim, but the Government can have been in no doubt of the dangers facing the industry and its possible decline. This can not be in doubt because hon. Members on both sides, on every conceivable occasion have brought the state of the industry to the attention of the Government, and that is the job of Parliament. Parliament was demanding action for a long time before it got any action from this Government. I am only sorry that today we are debating the old style of white fish Order. What we ought to be debating today is new legislation. I think there has been delay and a delay for which the Minister must accept responsibility.
I refer, while on this question, to paragraph 27, in the Conclusion, of the Select Committee's Report, which says:
Fishing sometimes appears to be the cinderella of the Department. We sensed in our witnesses a feeling of neglect amounting to a malaise, which we would like to see exorcised.
I do not know whether that was political, but it was certainly endorsed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West. The sooner we


get rid of the idea that the fishing industry is a Cinderella the better for everybody concerned.
The Committee earlier put its finger on the whole question of the difficulties we are facing: are we to continue to have a deep sea trawling industry? I was particularly interested to read what the Committee had to say in paragraph 9 on page VII:
Socially, deep sea fishing is a way of life to an important part of the community; it would be defeatism for an island people to withdraw from the sea.
With that I fully agree, and what we have to ask ourselves is, are the Government's present policies going to ensure that we do not indeed withdraw from the sea?
Like everyone else who has connections with fishermen, I welcome the new Government subsidies and the increase. One cannot give a final judgment, of course, till one sees how the final terms will work out. I will express one doubt I have, and that is that whilst of course there has been a welcome by the industry for the fact that efficiency will be the test of how the new subsidy will be paid, difficulties remain. This I welcome.
It seems that from a practical point of view, however, it may be difficult to judge efficiency because of the state of the market. A ship may go to sea and fish as efficiently as it can but return to port at the same time as other trawlers, and because they all get back together the market may be low. On the other hand, an inefficient ship might produce greater profitability merely because it landed at the right time, and if that ship were to get more subsidy it would be wrong. It may be a headache to work out in detail the general principle that we seek.
While we welcome the Government's measures, do they amount to enough? I do not mean in money; I do not think the Government have enough room to manœuvre to continue to pour great sums of money into the industry, nor would it be wise in the long run. I refer to other aspects of the Government's policy. I am glad that they are to have talks with E.F.T.A. This may be the key. Unless we can get a measure of restraint from our friends in E.F.T.A. and, perhaps even more, some restrictions on imports

from countries which are not so friendly towards us, we may be faced with crisis.
There is another facet of policy which the Government ought to pursue. I gather that they are having talks about a minimum national price scheme. Combined with the Government's financial measures, plus something about imports, this could mean the saving of the industry. Some of my hon. Friends from Scotland, particularly those representing the inshore fishermen, are not so keen, but I think that the Aberdeen trawler owners may be more inclined towards it. This is a terribly difficult industry because of the clashing interests which have to be reconciled. I do not envy the Government in their task of bringing those views together. However, we need a national minimum price scheme, and in that may lie the main hope for the future and the main hope of not having a constant flood of money going into the industry from the Government, which the industry has never wanted and does not want now.
On the success of the Government's policy and the success of the trawler owners in overcoming their difficulties rests the real chance of improving working conditions for the men on board the trawlers. While the industry is depressed, the task of getting better safety standards, better ships and better quarters for the crew is made doubly difficult. It is in the interest of everybody that we should have a viable and profitable industry as early as possible.

10.54 a.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar: There has been a very cautious but very real welcome for the Minister's statement on 8th July from the industry, certainly in my part of the world. The good will gained on that occasion has probably been increased by the transitional arrangements which we are discussing.
The statement has rightly been taken as evidence of the Government's determination to have a viable fishing industry trading profitably in future. Very few tears have been shed for the old subsidy system, the fag-end of which we see this year, with its tapering subsidies disappearing in 1972.
The operating subsidies announced in the Minister's statement represent only the first part of what I hope will be


a much more comprehensive packet for the industry. The inter-departmental review must have made a large number of other suggestions for dealing with the problems that face the industry, but the financial arrangements are obviously basic and important.
We are discussing, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said, in effect a bridging arrangement. We have the minimum reduction of 7½ per cent. under the 1962 Act together with a special grant paid right across the board. This is particularly welcome to the Scottish middle distance fleet. If my arithmetic is correct, a boat of over 80 but under 110 ft. getting £5 3s. 6d. as a daily operating subsidy last year can look forward next year to a rate of £7 4s. at least until the end of January. That is welcome.
I have one small point about this, however. I suppose it is conceivable, though not likely, that a boat receiving the £7 4s. under the transitional arrangements might when the criteria of efficiency come into operation find itself after the end of January, 1969, in receipt of less. While it was made clear in the opening statement that the sum being disbursed at the moment would be set against the industry's total amount for the coming year, I should like to know the position of an individual boat getting more during the transitional period than it will ultimately get. I take it that there would be no claiming back of the payment or reduction of future grant made as a result of any unintentional generosity of the Government during the period now being discussed.
Everyone has welcomed the emphasis on efficiency in the new arrangements. We are glad to get away from the blanket arbitrary footage categories that we had for so long. But great questions are still being begged relating to how the scheme will operate. Discussions are going on and all sides of the industry are doubtless moving with the greatest expedition to a solution.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice made one or two points on how the operating profit of a boat is calculated under a scheme of this type. I do not want to go into the ramifications of that, but there are one or two points of importance. I should be very doubtful of any scheme which took depreciation into account. Depreciation is always a

very difficult and doubtful subject in the fishing industry. One can take replacement cost or historic cost, the 6½ per cent. that the White Fish Authority is apt to give in its accounts or the more realistic 10 per cent. which firms have to take into account in drawing up their budget. One has also the problem of the older oil-burning boats which are now fully written down. When one talks about a more efficient fleet and the phasing-out of the archaic parts of it, one should be cautious about accepting depreciation as a proper allowance against profit because one may be giving a great advantage to older boats and penalising the newer sections of the fleet where depreciation is a meaningful allowance. For these reasons I should like to see depreciation excluded.
There is a strong case, for two obvious reasons, for excluding wages. If wages are not excluded for subsidy purposes there may be a marginal tendency artificially to hold wages down, and it is important for the fleet and its future that there should be a contented work force as well as a contented body of employers. In the fishing ports there is talk about the difficulties of recruitment. Everyone is aware of the very great disincentive to recruitment represented by bad working conditions, and all would like to see the problem overcome. But wages are very important incentives as well and must be attractive to the type of permanent crews that we want. Adequate financial incentives must be given, and anything in this scheme, however indirect, which may give encouragement to hold down wages should be avoided.
The second factor is safety. If wages are included, there may be a tendency again—indeed, a temptation—to under-man boats so as to push up profit margins and got as much as possible out of the Government. In the present atmosphere, and bearing in mind the recent tragedies that have occurred, safety must be a matter of prime importance. For these two reasons, crews' wages and safety, I hope that when considering operating profit for purposes of subsidy, wages will be excluded.
I have been fascinated by the possible rôle in the fishing industry of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. My right hon. Friend mentioned this issue in his statement of 8th July and on that occasion I questioned him about it.


Understandably I received only a cursory answer; and my questions were more in the nature of giving notice, so to speak, of my interest in the subject.
I do not know exactly what the I.R.C. will do for the fishing industry. Will it merely give high-powered advice? I am sceptical, in view of the past record of the industry with advisory bodies, of such a rôle for the I.R.C. being effective. The White Fish Authority has been giving good advice, as have the Government, and a large number of other parties have been trying to persuade the industry to make necessary structural reform.
Unfortunately, we have seen only little action in the past. If it is thought that the I.R.C. will make a significant impact and that its activities will be geared to the new subsidies with the object of creating efficiency, then it will have an important rôle to play. But if not, many others will be sceptical about it. The I.R.C. must take a more active rôle in the affairs of the industry if it is to be really effective.
I do not suppose that the I.R.C. will actively promote mergers in the sense of putting in capital or entering the industry on its own account. I hope that the Minister will comment on the sort of rôle he thinks the I.R.C. will take between the two extremes of giving helpful advice and active intervention or participation. The I.R.C. must have a defined position if it is not to become part of a meaningless verbiage, a screen attached to the subsidy handouts to give them an acceptable appearance.
Reference has been made to the minimum price scheme and, while I did not intend to comment on this subject—because I seem to refer to it in every speech I make about the fishing industry —I must mention, since the attitude of Aberdeen was raised, that the Aberdeen middle-distance fleet has been a faithful supporter of the minimum price scheme from the beginning. It is disappointing that in the latest Report of the White Fish Authority it is stated in paragraph 10 that there has been no real swing of opinion in favour of this scheme in those sections of the industry which pressed for the repeal of the original proposals. I agree with the hon. Member for Haltemprice that there must be a scheme with a national basis and that it is no

good leaving the matter to individual ports to organise in a piecemeal fashion.
Such an attitude—leaving it to individual ports to organise—would not result in the stable basis which we want to see established in the price structure for the domestic market. I assure the Minister that there will be every support from the Aberdeen fleet; and I hope that the Government will not be put off merely by the same sort of opposition from the same sort of places. I hope that the Minister will use any pressure that is necessary to push the scheme through.
Much has been said about imports and I accept the complaints that have been made. This is a worrying factor for every section of the fishing industry. However, I am always suspicious of attempts to protect the domestic market. As a trading nation, Britain should always look carefully at any case that is put up for protecting a sector of industry. We must remember that we can not afford to lead the way in this sphere and that expanding world trade is the basis of our prosperity. But the White Fish Authority has emphasised that we are about the only free market left and that every nation with which we trade has some kind of restriction covering the entry of fish imports. It is fair, therefore, that we, too, should look carefully at this matter.
One need only consider the examples of some of the countries with which we trade. For example, Iceland has a total population of only 10,000 people more than my city of Aberdeen. In the last six or seven years we have had an unfavourable balance of trade with Iceland, largely because of the massive imports of fish and fish products—I am including fish products used for animal feed and so on; I do not have edible products only in mind—into this country. Those imports have been worth between £7 million and £8 million a year and it is inevitable that we should look carefully at this state of affairs.

Mr. James Johnson: Would my hon. Friend agree that one must adopt a humanitarian attitude in this matter, remembering that Iceland has nothing but fish on which to live and trade and that it must, therefore, export? Would he agree that we must keep this matter in perspective?

Mr. Dewar: I do not wish to single out Iceland for particular criticism. Some sort of mutually advantageous arrangement must be reached to limit, or at least control, the import of fish. I am thinking particularly of imports from our various E.F.T.A. partners as well as from Iceland. It would be sensible and justifiable if we could reach an agreement along these lines. I accept that that is a big "if", as any realist would be the first to agree.
I have often said in the House that there is no town in Britain to which the fishing industry is more vital than it is to Aberdeen. We are a service centre for industry and fish is by far our most important and basic industry. I am anxious to see the present negotiations come to a satisfactory conclusion so that both sides of the industry, employers and men, can enjoy stability.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice made a passing reference to the special subsidy which is now being divided among more boats. The implication of his comment was that perhaps some of the older boats which urgently required aid last year may still be in the same economic position this year, but are receiving less. I appreciate why he made that remark. However, he will be the first to accept that fishing is a fluctuating industry and that while the Scottish middle-distance fleet had a good year—I use the word "good" in the context of what has been happening to the distant-water fleet in England—there are signs that things are even less happy now in my part of the world. In the first five months of this year, I have been informed by the Scottish Trawlers Federation, there was an 8·2 per cent. increase in landings, prices were down by 12·3 per cent. and the total value of the catch was down by 5·1 per cent., facts which add up to the £350,000 loss to which the hon. Member for Haltemprice referred.
I will not dwell on these figures because I do not wish to spread unnecessary gloom. Nevertheless, statistics of this sort show how important it is for a new formula to be evolved with the absolute minimum of delay so that the industry knows where it is and can get on with the job of increasing the efficiency of the fleet and of what I hope will be the important contribution to import saving

which the industry can and must make in the years ahead.
The Government have realised the importance of the rôle which fishing has to play. Its importance was emphasised in the Minister's statement of 8th July. There are signs that the Government will provide, in the next few years, the aid that is required. It is now up to the industry persuaded or, if need be, goaded on by the Government, to implement its part of the pledge and use the time it has been given to put its house in order.

11.11 a.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I will not discuss many of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) because, as he knows, the problems facing the fishing industry in my constituency are somewhat different from those facing his constituency. However, I quarrel with him in one respect, and that is his remark about Aberdeen depending more than any other town on fishing. It is fair to say that at least two towns in my constituency are equally dependent on fishing, but I will come to that.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Order refer to the percentage of herring landed at the ports specified in any month. The Government will have to look at this again very carefully, because there is no doubt that if only 20 per cent. of the total landing goes for fishmeal, that is a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs, because it means that the larger catches of herring are penalised and that it is totally uneconomic for larger landings to be made.
I understood that the Government's inter-Departmental inquiry, which has been going on for the last 3½ years, was being conducted on behalf of the whole fishing industry, but in his statement on 8th July the Minister specifically excluded the inshore fleet from his remarks. This was a grave omission. The inshore fleet was able to take some sort of cold comfort from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman said that the subsidy position for the current year would be no different from that of last year. Presumably, what the Government have in mind—at least, I hope that this is what they have in mind —is that the arrangements for the deep sea vessels are transitional and that all sections of the industry will be covered by the new legislation, but it seems a little


hard to the inshore section that it should have been specifically excluded from the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
It is not good enough to say that the inshore fleet has had a good year and that the Government are therefore being gracious when they do not reduce the subsidies for the inshore fleet for the ensuing year. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said, the phrase "good year" is only relative. The Government should say that there is no decrease in the subsidy to make up for the rising costs which all sections of the industry, not least the inshore section, are having to face. Costs have risen astronomically in all directions and for all facilities and all types of gear—ropes, fuel, victuals and everything else.
It is fair to remind the House that these subsidies were introduced to cater for such things as increases in the cost of ropes and gear generally. The statement did not take account of the fact that over the last five months inshore vessels have not been doing so well, again relatively. Neither does the standstill, as it were, take account of the increased efficiency which the inshore boats are achieving through the use of very sophisticated electronic aids, which are extremely costly to buy and very costly to hire.
In its Report for 1967–68, the Research and Development Department of the White Fish Authority states that the fishing industry as a whole
must be prepared to face radical changes, but the tragedy of the fishing industry is that this was not both realised and acted upon much earlier.
The Report pleads for more funds which, it says,
would be a real contribution to the support of the industry.
This is something in which the Government can directly intervene to the enormous advantage of the entire industry, and it would be an earnest of their intentions towards the industry as a whole. There are three parts of the work of the research and development organisation. It tries to bring about increased vessel efficiency; it tries to do work and report on improvements for handling, processing and the distribution of fish, both at sea and ashore; and it does exploratory work for new fishing grounds. These are all extremely important contributions to

the future of the industry, and perhaps the most important is the increased efficiency factor which it is always trying to get.
I am glad to see from this Report that the amount expended by the W.F.A. on research and development rose by £13,000 between 1966–67 and 1967–68. Paragraph 133 of the White Fish Authority Report to March, 1968, refers to this, but paragraph 135 makes it clear that the increase was due almost entirely to increased costs of administration and so on. The direct and specific grant which I suggest that the Government make to the Authority for research and development would pay rich dividends and, for as little as £50,000 a year, would be of enormous benefit. The Government may say that they have no powers to make such a grant. I hope that they will take such power when the new legislation comes along.
In his statement of 8th July, the Minister served notice on the industry at large that efficiency was the main factor which would govern the future degree of support. How is this efficiency to be measured? In its editorial of 19th July, theFishing News said:
There can be few exact measurements of performance in fishing Luck as well as good management is needed to keep a vessel among the top earners.
I echo the next words:
We hope, therefore, that the formula for the payment of the new subsidy will be based on something more than what the vessel catches and earns.
This morning, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the profitability of the inshore vessels declined from more than £2 million in 1966 to less than £2 million in 1967. Is this degree of profitability to be one of the yardsticks for measuring efficiency? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will answer that question when he winds up the debate.
One of the chief problems which the Research and Development Department of the White Fish Authority has to face is getting across the results of its investigations to skippers and crews. There are two reasons for this. First, there is the shortage of staff in the Department and, secondly, there is a degree of reluctance among some skippers and crews to try out new methods. One of the problems to be faced, therefore, is selling the work of the


Department to the professional practitioner. Making more money directly available to the Department would be one way in which to get its work across.
The willingness of more progressive skippers to accept and adopt new and proven methods and techniques could well be the criterion for future support payments. I give one example. A great deal more could be done to encourage the use in Seine net vessels of power-block crane methods for bringing the haul in. That not only reduces labour but reduces the time of the haul and therefore increases the catching capacity of any one vessel.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: There is also the safety factor.

Mr. Baker: As the hon. Member points out, there is also the safety factor. The inshore fishing fleet is facing many difficulties, as are other sections of the industry. One of the biggest difficulties at the moment is recruitment of crew. To say the least, fishing is a hazardous calling at the best of times. One of the most important things holding back recruitment is the need for a long-term assurance in the industry. I trust that when the Government bring forward their legislation in the next session we shall have some long-term assurance which we most certainly need, not least for the inshore fleet.
Will this new legislation cover the entire fishing fleet? Will it cover not only the deep water section but the inshore section as well? I re-iterate a question put by other hon. Members: do the Government envisage that when the legislation is brought forward it will incorporate a statutory minimum price scheme for the whole industry? Will it be operable in certain sections only? May we have the Government's view on that?
We in this House have a strong responsibility for the fishing industry. We have all too few opportunities for debating it. It is certainly a non-party issue, in spite of what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said earlier this morning. Because we have this responsibility, I hope that when the legislation is brought forward it will be in the form of a long-term assurance for the entire industry.

11.22 a.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: We have had much talk

this morning about this being a non-controversial subject and a non-party issue. If that is so it is a sad reflection on the House. It should be a controversial issue because of the criticisms we have heard this morning concerning organisation of the industry, labour relations, the accident rate, the way public money is to be spent and the record of the parties on the way in which they have dealt with the industry. These are controversial matters on which we should be stating an opinion. This is our rôle. We stick our necks out and either have our heads chopped off or, sometimes, achieve a halo. This is the essential way to approach the problems of the industry.

Mr. James Johnson: Perhaps I was misunderstood. I was gently chiding the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) who was speaking officially for the Opposition.

Mr. McNamara: I am not criticising my hon. Friend in any way. I was criticising what was said by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker), who spoke about this being a non-political issue.

Mr. Baker: I probably expressed myself extremely badly. What I meant is that the subject is non-controversial in a party-political sense.

Mr. McNamara: I shall return to that. As I see the policy, outlined in this fag-end of the present statutory instruments which we are considering, the minor provisions which are made are being made to a policy which was criticised by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the time it was introduced. He said that if the industry wanted this system it should have it, but he did not think it would be successful. That has proved to be the case. It is no good hon. Members opposite saying that we did not know what would happen in E.F.T.A. or we did not know about improvements. The policy did not have the flexibility which could foresee, even a few years ahead, the technical changes, although they must have been on the drawing board at that time. That is a criticism, not only of the Government which introduced the scheme, but of the industry itself.
As I understand the policy of the Government about what is to happen to the industry, I see this as a four-pronged


attack. The Government have to be successful on four points if we are to have the viable industry which we want. We have to consider the new subsidy structure, negotiations with E.F.T.A., the rôle which the I.R.C. will play and—last, but by no means least—what is to happen in the labour relations of the industry arising from the proposed alterations to the Merchant Shipping Act, which I hope will get rid of the nasty penal clauses and set up a proper system of industrial relations, and the effect of the Holland-Martin inquiry on safety, of which we hope to hear later this year.
The decision to have a subsidy based on productivity and efficiency will undoubtedly be the most controversial. That will be not only because of the difficulties involved in working out a system but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) said, because of the problems of the safety factor, the size of crew and the wages paid. To have any sort of system which will take account of these, particularly the safety factor—this industry has the highest fatal accident rate of any—we have to remove from the area all controversy about crews' wages. Therefore, I should like to see a subsidy based on an estimated fair return for the catch and the operational cost of the vessel. We have to have an operational cost which takes into consideration problems arising out of depreciation. If we can get that with the market price raised for the fish taken into consideration in the formula, we shall arrive at a situation in which perhaps we can get the industry set on its feet.
In the market price which the catch gets we have the biggest problem, for flooding all the British markets are cheap frozen fillets from Norway and Iceland. This has meant the laying up of vessels in Hull and Grimsby and a plaintive bleat from some owners for the control of foreign landings. I call it a plaintive bleat because in some degree it is hypocritical. The fact that some Hull owners are acting as agents for the foreign sellers and buying their fish to put into cold storage while at the same time calling for Government subsidies suggests that the only people who are suffering are the actual fishermen whose settling sheets after recent trips have

shown only miserable sums to their credit. This cynical policy of some of the owners is indicative of their short-term approach to the problems of the industry which has prevented its development. They have considered only what is happening today and have never considered the problems of the future.
Now that the industry is to start negotiations in August with the E.F.T.A. countries, I should like to see a proper system of a controlled market on the lines of the bacon agreement. I should like there to be an agreement which would give a definite percentage of the British market to the British fleet to enable it to overcome the difficulties which have arisen because of the extension of limits, particularly by Norway and Iceland. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) in thinking that we can in no way meet the problem of Iceland. Iceland has particular problems. Over 90 per cent. of its national wealth depends on fish. If we were to put up a tariff Iceland could automatically devalue. I should not want us to be engaged in an operation against Iceland in that way. I think we can tolerate Iceland, but the problem which comes from Norway needs negotiation as does the problem of the future, which was raised by the hon. Member for Haltemprice, arising from Greenland.
If we can get an agreement on the lines of the bacon agreement we might be on the way to solving some of these problems. We have to get it properly established. It is surely possible to get for the deep sea fleet, in particular, which is increasingly becoming concerned with the frozen aspect of fillets for fish fingers, away in some degree from the fluctuations of the market day by day.
It is in the sphere in which the I.R.C. will come in that the most controversy will arise. I do not think that the future of the industry will be properly assured until it has been reorganised. On the catching side alone, it is over-fragmented. Only half a dozen large firms in England and Wales own over 20 vessels apiece, amounting to 280 vessels and 62 per cent. of the fleet. The remaining 38 per cent. of the fleet, numbering 169 vessels, has 40 owners, of whom 13 own only one vessel, according to the White Fish Authority's Report for this year.
Most of the firms, with the notable exception of Ross and Associated, are private companies. With a certain degree of hindsight, it was probably a mistake when the Monopolies Commission did not agree to the merging of those two firms. Because they are private companies, it is impossible to get a real overall picture of the industry. This is because of family connections, interlocking directorships in the ancillary industries—some large, some small; such things as fish meal, the ice company, oil, fish wholesaling, cold storage, trawler owners and repairs, shipbuilding, and the actual distribution. The whole set-up of the industry needs to be carefully inquired into so that we can know exactly where it is going, what it is trying to do, how efficient or otherwise it is.
I believe that there is a need for horizontal and vertical integration. The severe slump in fish prices in the Hull market was never shown in the price demanded for the commodity in the shops. This is a criticism of the industry as a such. Although there was a slump in prices, the retail price demanded from the housewife hardly decreased at all. This was at a time of rising meat prices. The share of fish in the market has been constant, although it should have been rising because of the slump in price and the rise in the price of meat. This is a tremendous criticism of the wholesaling and retailing side of the industry. The price that the men have been getting for their fish in their settling sheets after they receive their basic pay and the price demanded from the housewife prove that both the fisherman and the housewife have been taken for a ride somewhere in the industry.
I have said before that advertising in the industry has been sporadic; aggressive marketing has been conspicuous by its absence, and the industry has itself yet to agree on a minimum price scheme based upon quality. It is here that the introduction of the I.R.C. can be of such tremendous importance. Under the terms of the I.R.C. Act, the Corporation can establish its own body corporate to compete with existing firms and act as a pace setter. Although it is doubtful whether it will have the courage or will to do this, or whether it would even be commercially sound, the advent of the I.R.C. amongst: private companies in this indus-

try is a happy precedent and is to be particularly welcomed.
I must say in fairness to the owners that the Scottish owners asked for the I.R.C. and that the English owners were prepared to go along with it. This illustrates a realisation amongst the owners of the sorry position into which the industry has got. Nevertheless whether the I.R.C. sets up a body corporate or not, the Corporation, using commercial criteria to invest large sums in the industry, and perhaps acquiring a large equity holding, which I would like to see happen, means that a long overdue process of rationalisation, integration and marketing efficiency will be introduced. A new management structure, fresh capital, new techniques and new men could create the framework for a flourishing industry prepared to look ten years ahead and not just to the quick buck of this year's profits.
The I.R.C. can bring a new approach, by being prepared to look ten to 15 years ahead at possible developments in new fishing grounds. It is a reflection upon us that there has been no discussion this morning of the White Fish Authority's Report on the developments of the South African coast and the prospects that these may hold for the industry. It is also a criticism of the industry that it has not followed up to a much greater extent what the Poles, the Russians and others have been doing.
I also believe that the introduction of the I.R.C. is a clear indication that the Government have at last accepted the failure of the White Fish Authority to play a decisive role in the development of the industry, as has been demonstrated by the almost total disregard paid to its services or advice, most of it basically sound, by the industry as a whole.
Published the day following the Minister's statement on the new scheme for the industry, the Report of the Fisheries Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Agriculture, presided over with such distinction by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, and of which the hon. Member for Haltemprice was a member, said that
either the Authority should be abolished and its duties of research and development carried out by an advisory body within the Department or it should be given very much more real power—and this must include money.


The arrival of the I.R.C. on the scene is an indication that the Government think that the White Fish Authority has failed, for a whole number of reasons, not least the fact that it could not overcome the innate conservatism within the industry.
It is, however, in the replacement of the fleet that the problems of reorganisation are best illustrated. Not even the larger firms seem to have had a general policy for the scrapping and replacement of vessels. The old scrapping ratio of 2 for 1, to qualify for the building subsidy, was altered earlier this year to 1 for 1; and this alteration was welcomed. Despite this, the age of the fleet has increased and the number of older vessels has remained almost constant.
There has been no forward planning of the future needs of the industry, the type of vessels which may be required ten years hence, or the developments in design that might be needed with the opening of new grounds. The advantage of a common design team in reducing the overheads of the industry and the impetus it could give to the smaller shipyards outside the development areas which are now complaining about the effects of R.E.P. scarcely seem to have been examined. I raised this subject in the House earlier this year. Three individually ordered trawlers getting the British subsidy have been built in Poland and are being delivered this year. All could have been built in British yards.
Surely the Ministry of Technology—I realise that it is that Ministry's problem rather than that of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—should bring together the I.R.C, the vessel owners and the shipbuilders to look at the advantages that might be gained from common design teams in a common programme of building, instead of buying vessels in an almost will of the wisp manner, ordering them individually, with all the extra costs that this entails in overheads.
I believe that the new subsidy structure applied intelligently to a reorganised industry with a better managed market, coupled with the reforms involved in the new Merchant Shipping Act and the fresh approach to labour conditions which it is hoped will flow from the Holland-Martin Inquiry, could reform the in-

dustry. The question is whether the industry itself is prepared to shake itself out of its traditional attitudes and take what is in fact this last chance being offered by the Government.
I, for one, have always believed that, if Government money is going into the industry, the Government should control the way in which the money is spent more directly than it does even at the moment. I would be quite prepared to see a State-controlled fishing fleet acting as a pace setter for the industry; or, if necessary, the State could take the industry over completely. After all, all the usual criteria for nationalisation of poor labour relations, inefficient organisation, and the need to control an important sector of industry within the economy, are present in this industry. I would weep no tears if the industry went out of private and into public ownership. If this does not happen, and if the industry does not take advantage of the opportunities which it has been offered in this last chance, I do not think that we can hope to see the viable industry for which all hon. Members have asked today.
There is one last point on which I want to congratulate my hon. Friend. In the past the trade union within the industry has always felt that it has been ignored—not deliberately, I believe—by Governments of both political complexions. I believe that this has happened because within the union the fishermen are only a small segment and because the industry has always tried to keep itself out of the public eye as much as possible and away from governmental interference. I can understand the motives for this. Although I do not necessarily approve of it, I can well understand that attitude.
I congratulate the Minister, therefore, on his statement today that the Transport and General Workers' Union is to come at an early stage into the negotiations regarding the subsidy structure for the industry and the effect which it will have on crews' wages. We want a highly paid, highly skilled crew in the industry. We want the men well trained. Again, one could write books about the lack of training facilities in the past. For these reasons, I particularly welcome my hon. Friend's statement that the trade unions will come in at an early stage.
I believe that we shall have the developments in the industry which are needed. I do not take the pessimistic view adopted by some hon. Members who say that the help offered is too little and too late and that the Government are to be criticised on that account. In fact, the Government have done a very good job in the way they have approached the problem. They have done it in a short time, as it is only since 1966 that the industry has been losing money and not making profits. The Government are to be congratulated for the helpful and friendly attitude which they have taken towards the problems of the industry.

11.40 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) naturally concentrated upon the deep water trawler fleets. I shall speak about both parts of the fishing industry, the deep sea trawlers and the inshore fleets.
The deep water fleets have been suffering from the severe difficulties which hon. Members on both sides have described, and I welcome the Government's announcement, made last week, of a special scheme to assist the trawler fleets. I am only sorry that we cannot embark on the introduction of the special scheme today and it has to wait for about six months before it can be brought in.
The first main cause of the difficulties for the trawlers is that other countries, those countries whose fishing fleets are competing with ours, seem to be pouring money into their fleets. Secondly, in addition to that, they are pouring imports into this country. There is, therefore, cut-throat competition between the fishing countries as to who can most subsidise their fishing fleets. In this situation, the countries concerned ought to be able to come together and work out a sensible solution, while preserving healthy competition among the fleets.
I was interested to hear what the Minister said about the question of imports. He told us that the amount of frozen fillets from Scandinavia had reached the maximum foreseen in the talks in 1959, and he reported that the volume of imports was the same as in the previous year. I thought it significant, however, that they had decreased in value

by about £1 million. This gives ground for the suspicion that these imports, or some of them, are subsidised or dumped. The volume remains the same but the value has declined.
I welcome, therefore, the statement that discussions are to start with some of the countries, three Scandinavian countries, I understand, on 15th August. I urge the Government to tackle the problem robustly when they meet these other countries and have discussions about imports in general.
The situation in which the deep water trawlers find themselves is described very well in the leading article inFishing News of 12th July, another part of which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall).Fishing News said:
For two years now the industry has taken such a battering that it is still not sure the cure has arrived in time to help it.
The special scheme is being introduced rather late in the day, but I, like other hon. Members, very much hope that it will give the industry the assistance which it can use, so long as it is allied with discussions with the other countries with which the present fierce competition is taking place.
I turn now to the inshore fishing fleet. The Minister reported that its profitability had declined slightly in comparison with the previous year. I do not find that surprising because it accords roughly with the estimate which I had made from my own observations of the fleets in the North of Scotland. The Government must carefully watch the position of the inshore fleets. This section of the industry provides the fresh, newly caught, fish which is essential for our food supplies in this country.
Through these Instruments, the Government propose that inshore boats shall receive the same rates of subsidy in the coming year as they have been receiving in the past year, but it seems that the proposal is to include some more boats in the voyage rates rather than in the stonage rates. I hope that the Minister who is to reply—I am sorry that he is not here at the moment, but I realise that he is probably preparing for his reply—will explain the Government's policy on this and state whether they propose to move more boats on to the voyage rates and away from the stonage rates.
In his opening speech, the Minister confirmed that the shell fish side of the industry is expanding. Again, this is not surprising. The shell fish market is growing and shell fish are becoming more popular as a food. I hope that the Government will encourage expansion in this sector and help to remove any obstacles as they arise.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) spoke of the competition which can develop, and is developing in some areas, between the two sides of the industry, the deep water vessels—the trawlers—and the inshore boats. I mention one aspect of this which will be of increasing importance. There have been requests from some British trawlers to operate in certain inshore waters which are now prohibited to them. I am thinking particularly of the Moray Firth. The Cameron Committee is at present considering this question along with other matters of conservation and fishing limits around our shores.
Although I am very sympathetic towards the plight of the trawlers in their present situation, I urge the Government to be very chary of allowing trawling in the Moray Firth, because this could cause great difficulties for the inshore fleets, the local boats based upon the Moray Firth which traditionally fish in these waters. Their operations could be made difficult not only because of the large amount of sea needed for a trawling operation, but also because damage could be done to valuable breeding grounds and nurseries for young fish. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, this was the original reason for imposing the ban in the past. The inshore boats in the north of Scotland will be able to carry on at the same rates of subsidy as before only if they continue to be served well by the boat builders of the north and east of Scotland. Without the skill and close co-operation of the boat-building firms the inshore boats would not be able to carry on at these rates.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North spoke about this important matter of boat building. I should add that in the north and east of Scotland there are very special difficulties for boat builders arising from increasing costs and shortage of skilled labour. One problem

that perhaps does not seem obvious to hon. Members representing other parts of the country is that the prices and incomes policy can cause skilled men to be attracted to jobs with other firms and in other industries. They can move to higher rates of pay without infringement of the policy. This happens particularly when firms from the South with higher rates start working in the North on a new project or contract. I ask the Government to give special consideration to that and similar problems of the boat builders in the North, because without them the whole subsidy scheme before us will not work; without their contribution also safety, which is very important, cannot be guaranteed. We have, unfortunately, had the importance of safety tragically brought to our notice in the past year.
I hope that in his reply today the Minister will tell us something about the latest position concerning the proposal for a minimum prices scheme. Are there still objections or reservations in the one or two quarters from which they previously came? My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) suggested that it was the port of Aberdeen that was objecting, but the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) told us that it was not objecting, and that was welcome news. Therefore, we should like to hear from the Government what the latest position is. We may find that there are no longer any objectors to such a scheme, and that a national scheme— I agree that it would have to be a national scheme—can now be considered.
I am glad to see that the Undersecretary of State for Scotland is now here. Earlier I put a question which I hoped his hon. Friend would pass to him. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman cannot be here all the time, for he was no doubt preparing for his reply. I hope that he can tell us the latest position on the proposal for a minimum prices scheme.

11.52 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: We have had a debate that some of us would describe as agreeable. Compliments have winged their way across the Floor of the House in a slightly unusual manner, rather to the distraction of the hon. Member for Kingston upon


Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who could take it no longer and started being healthily controversial. I shall likewise distract him by saying that I should like to congratulate the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on its work. The sort of document it produced is of great value to those of us who take part in fishing debates. Such Reports always provide us with much information that is of great interest in getting to the root of the various problems with which we deal.
I would not criticise the Government's action over subsidies today, but shall pay them a slightly back-handed compliment by saying that they could really do no less than they are doing in view of the gravity of the situation and the industry's plight. It is no better than it was when we debated the matter a few months ago; if anything, the position has deteriorated.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) gave certain figures concerning the Scottish trawling fleet. More days were fished in the first five months of the year and more fish was landed, but the price was down by 10s. a cwt., and the value of the catch was down by about £150,000. When one adds on the increased costs, one sees that the fleet is worse off in those five months by the £350,000 that has been mentioned. All this follows upon the disastrous 1967 figures to which I referred in great detail in our debate on 15th May.
One or two hon. Members have spoken critically of the cheap supplies of fish from Scotland. I can well recall that when I was in the position now occupied by the Under-Secretary of State, I used to hear great complaints of the invasion of the Minch by what were called foreign trawlers. We were told that they came from Fleetwood. I am one of those who do not want the border of Scotland to turn into a frontier, and I think that my views are shared by one or two others in the Chamber. Therefore, particularly as the fish from Scotland is superior to any other fish, I am sure that it is to to the great advantage of the English market to get it.
One tiling disturbs me, and it has not been mentioned this morning. There have been bad prices, and there has been no increase in consumption. The interest-

ing point was brought out by the Sub-Committee that there has been no increase in the consumption per head of fish for many years. It is entirely static, and the only thing that is keeping gross consumption is the rise in the population.

Mr. McNamara: I made that point on price and consumption, and on share of the market.

Mr. Stodart: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He must have made that point during the five or 10 minutes of the debate when I was out of the Chamber. I emphasise that it is an important point. I read the other day that a survey showed that only one family out of 10 eats fish for breakfast. The other nine are missing a great deal. I only hope that greater efforts will be made to increase consumption, and that there will be better results. I know that the White Fish Authority has been making great efforts to try to increase consumption, but the situation is very like that in agriculture, where the consumption of lamb is falling steeply for no reason that anyone has discovered. There is tremendous room for an increase in consumption, and things would be much easier if that happened.
There has been mention this morning, not unnaturally, of the policy initiated by the Fleck Report, which is now coming to an end. It is all very well to blame the Fleck policy, and for hon. Members to blame us for having introduced it into legislation. But the principle of Fleck in the Sea Fishing Industry Act did not meet any pronounced opposition on Second Reading. It is only fair to say that Fleck has not been assisted by imports being allowed virtually to knock the bottom out of the market.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said that we had been guilty of not looking ahead. With great respect, I do not quite know how one looks ahead to something which at the time does not exist. The advent of frozen fillets was something that no one could then visualise, though freezer trawlers were beginning to be talked about. There has been a tremendous revolution in what I would describe as the husbandry of the sea. As well as in the husbandry of the land. Anyone who 10 years ago could foresee what would happen in farming would indeed have had second sight, and that applies to the husbandry of the sea as well.
No one can tell for certain, but I should have thought that had there not been this tremendous flood of imports there might have been a chance of the Fleck policy succeeding. As I say, no one can tell for certain, but presumably the British Trawlers' Federation thought there was a chance of its succeeding, because they agreed to it. The only people who were fairly adamant in believing that it would not succeed was the Scottish Trawlers' Federation, which did not like the idea from the very beginning. Undoubtedly it would have been very rough going, though the fishing fleet has been getting increasing efficiency. Nevertheless, I am quite certain that imports have completely put paid to that policy and have finally wrecked it.
According to the latest figure in the White Fish Authority Report, imports of white fish amounted to 152,000 tons in 1967 compared with 140,000 in 1963. That is a nine per cent. increase over four years. British landings were up by only six per cent. in the same period. There is not a trace of any import-saving policy there. As with the agricultural industry, the Government will not get round to thinking in terms of saving food imports, wonderful potential though there is because temperate foodstuffs from the land and from the sea, that we could produce, are responsible for one-sixth of our total import bill.
We all recall the pledge that was given by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) in July of last year. There could not have been a more categorical pledge. It was a simple undertaking to protect the fishing industry. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember it perfectly. It was an unusually lucid expression of opinion. There was no hedging of any kind. He stated:
If countries abroad are undercutting our own industry in certain ways by subsidies, we shall take action to protect it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1967; Vol. 751, c. 691.]
Nothing could be more forthright than that.
Now we are to have talks. Talks do not always constitute action; otherwise there would not be that well-known phrase about action being better than words. I think that talks are a good thing, but I hope that the talks will go to the very root of the problem; that there will be no

limit to their scope, and that the hon. Gentleman whom I presume will take part in them will probe very deeply and examine the problem quite ruthlessly, because if by any chance these talks were to be limited to some rather superficial subject it would indeed be a case of action being more important than words.
This is not the place to discuss the Government's new proposals, partly because we do not yet know the details, but I hope that the Government realise and are fully appreciative of the urgency of the matter. When the legislation comes along, as I hope it will early in November, it will be our duty to examine thoroughly all the proposals, including the efficiency factor. Although in principle I think that this is a good idea I share some of the views and some of the slight misgivings mentioned by my hon. Friends. If the matter is to be judged on sheer naked profitability we shall have to look very carefully at the proposal, because I agree that profitability in the fishing industry, which has so much at stake, is by no means the best yardstick for efficiency. We shall examine the proposals closely, and in view of the urgency of the situation we shall examine them with expedition.
In these debates, the fishing industry is rather looked on as being all underneath one umbrella and the position of the inshore fleet tends to be overshadowed by the trawling industry. We have been told that the inshore fleet's profits were down slightly. I know that the inshore fleet has been doing better than the trawling industry, but if one were to say that it had been doing well I would put the word "well" in inverted commas, because I do not think that the return that any section of the industry gets today, considering the effort put in and the risk involved on the capital employed, matches what could be expected in other spheres of industry.
As I say, I welcome the renewal of the subsidies and of the supplementaries. My continuing concern is that the Government should realise that the potential of the fishing industry to contribute to a solution of our balance of payments problem has not yet been harnessed to any degree at all. It is on the opportunities that are to be given to the industry to contribute to the solution of this chronic problem of ours that we shall


judge the Government's new proposals when we see them.

12.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): This debate has been rather muted, partly because of a certain amount of recognition of the difficulties of the industry, and partly because controversy could not really enter into it, as hon. Members opposite know the very real urgency and support that we are now giving, perhaps after a rather long time, to the industry. What we are doing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, might have been welcomed a little more than it has been. I remember that when I closed the last debate on fisheries I said that the main thing that had emerged was that people wanted to know when and how much.
Today we have explained the dating of the new proposals and we know how much. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) asked for long-term assurances—we have given long-term assurances for three to five years. This is extremely important for the deep sea fleet and these measures refer to the deep sea fleet, not the inshore fleet.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I wanted to raise that point. The hon. Member has made it clear that the assurances were to do with the deep sea fleet. What about the inshore fleet?

Mr. Buchan: We are not talking about that in this context. What we have done about the inshore fleet has always been done in a different form of subsidies. What we have done is to make a standstill on the cuts where there is movement towards viability—an effective step, perhaps negative in the sense that there is no change, but positive in the sense that it reverses the policy of cuts.
I want to deal with Fleck and the position in 1962. Hon. Members opposite are being unfair to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I have read the discussions at that period and he warned us clearly of the possibilities that might arise. It is not good enough to be told that he was correct then but that hon. Members did not accept that such things could happen in future. The policy has been said to be far too inflexible, and this is one reason why we changed it. We

have been told that it is because of the problem of imports, which we did not envisage. The frozen fillet problem was known as far back as 1959. Hon. Members should recognise these facts and be a little less grudging about the measures that we are now taking.

Mr. Wall: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be equally better if the Government had moved a little earlier in changing their policy?

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member said that in his speech. He said that it was not too little, for which we should be grateful, but that it was too late. It seems a curious argument that when we alter a policy brought in by the party opposite, we should be accused of being rather late in bringing about a change. He said that what had been wrong with his party's policy was that it had maintained a good policy for too long. It is a curious but interesting definition.
I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He regarded this as a four-pronged attack, and he summed up the problems facing us well. First there are subsidies, secondly E.F.T.A. and imports, thirdly the I.R.C. and fourthly the human aspect, such as the Merchant Shipping Acts. On subsidies, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) raised the question of what factors should be included in examining efficiency. The hon. Member for Haltemprice said that we should take wages into consideration and my hon. Friend said that we should not. These matters are subject to discussion with the industry which will no doubt note the points made.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice also touched on an important point when he said that the problem was one of price. This is a problem about which we can get a little confused. He asked whether it was true that the earnings of the Scottish deep sea fleet in the first five months of 1968 were down by £350,000 compared with 1967, which would represent a loss of 12 per cent.
This base has been used once or twice during the debate. It is a problem introduced by the modern age, because it is a computed figure, taking account of varying factors, for example more time being spent at sea this year than last. The


actual earnings were down by only £137,000, not £350,000. He also asked about operating profits in terms of the new subsidies which involve the balance we are striking between the earnings of a vessel and the cost of operations aggregated over the whole fleet. We have been pressed to extend the discussions on imports, which are to take place on 15th August, beyond frozen fillets. I think that we should leave it at this, which is the important subject at present. I would rather not comment any further upon that. 1 cannot agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) that this is a superficial matter. It is extremely important, and I was impressed by his comment that we want action, not words.
In a matter of this sort, involving an agreement, words are what matter. They are a form of action, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting other than that we should come to an agreement with our E.F.T.A. partners on this. The criticisms made about the import side have been a little muted too. The hon. Member for Haltemprice asked about subsidy payments, and whether the crew would share that subsidy. This is a matter for negotiation between the owners and the unions.
Many hon. Members asked about the minimum price scheme. My right hon. Friend will be discussing this with the Chairman of the W.F.A. shortly, and I cannot pre-judge the outcome of this. There has been a slight movement on both sides, but we should leave this for those who have statutory responsibility-the W.F.A. Questions have also been asked about the owner having to refund any part of the daily rate. The details of the new arrangement are still being worked out, but in the circumstances put forward there would be no question of an individual owner repaying part of the daily rate.
My hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North and Aberdeen, South raised the question of the I.R.C., with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) keeping a watching brief. It would be wrong to say that this is yet another advisory body to which we shall not listen. It has relationships with other

aspects of industry which can throw fresh light on the fishing industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was correct when he said that the industry as a whole needs considering and that part of the problem is the failure to adopt an aggressive marketing policy. This is borne out by the points which have been made about consumption. More attention should be paid to what happens to the fish when it leaves the point of landing and reaches the breakfast plate. Perhaps the I.R.C. has a role to play in this regard.

Mr. James Johnson: Is it not a fact that the White Fish Authority is supposed to be undertaking a survey into these matters?

Mr. Buchan: It may have been doing it for some time. The I.R.C, by reason of the fact that it has experience of other industries, may be able to cast fresh light on the problems of the fishing industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North also referred to the conservatism of the fishing industry. I would not call anyone "conservative". I would rather say that perhaps the traditional aspects of the fishing industry should be changed.

Mr. Clegg: On a point of order. I find it difficult to hear what the Minister is saying when he faces the benches behind him.

Mr. Buchan: Since so many of the valuable points have been raised from behind me, it is inevitable that a few remarks should be addressed in that direction.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) asked whether there was a move towards voyage rates instead of stonage rates. The movement has been quite marginal—only 20 boats out of 900.

Mr. G. Campbell: I asked also whether the hon. Gentleman could state the Government's policy on this matter —whether it was the Government's intention to continue this movement.

Mr. Buchan: This is not a movement of any significance. There is no basic change in our attitude. The movement could easily have been the other way.
The hon. Member for Banff asked whether the new legislation would cover a minimum price scheme for the whole industry. Legislation exists to enable a statutory minimum price scheme to be introduced if there were agreement between the White Fish Authority and the industry.
We all recognise the difficulties of the industry; they have been clear to us for a long time. Equally, we recognised that a change had to be made in our subsidy arrangements. There has been a general welcome for the arrangements which will be introduced, we hope, next Session. The right kind of pressure must be brought to bear on the industry and the industry must be given incentives to bring about the efficiency. This is the end to which the subsidies will be directed.

Mr. G. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has answered one short point about the minimum price scheme, but he has not made any statement on the latest situation for which several hon. Members on both sides of the House asked.

Mr. Buchan: I said that there had been a slight change in attitude in the industry. This is a matter for the industry and the White Fish Authority. I can say no more than that.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn referred to the Cameron Committee and related it to the Moray Firth. He asked for comments about trawling in the Moray Firth. He will know as well as I do the complex mesh of arrangements which exist there. Because of

that, we established the Cameron Committee. We shall have to see its report before we do anything about the matter.
I welcome the emphasis which has been put on the need for furthering the research and development work of the White Fish Authority and the other bodies involved. Undoubtedly research into the industry is important.
We need to bring not the least pressure on the marketing side of the industry. It is not a question of not catching fish; the trouble is that we have not projected fish as an alternative to other foodstuffs. In view of the concentration of import saving, the industry has an opportunity, if it is taken aggressively, to make an improvement—I do not wish to exaggerate it— in its present position.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.

White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1968, [copy laid before the House 15th July], approved.—[Mr. Buchan.]

ADJOURNMENT

The Business having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKERadjourned theHouse without Question put, pursuant to Order.

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes past Twelve o'clock p.m.

Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

British Railways (Deficit)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Minister of Transport what he estimates the total cost of running the British Railways, which is not covered by receipts from customers, will be this year.

Mr.Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Transport what is the latest estimate of the British Railways deficit for 1968.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): We still expect the Railway Board's deficit in 1968 to be contained within the £152 million on which the Vote Estimate is based.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not know whether that was the answer that I was hoping to get. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, as a result of the changes in the Transport Bill, the taxpayer will have to pay more or less money in future to maintain the railways and the rest of the transport system?

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman asked what would be the deficit this year and I gave him the estimate of £152 million. The projected estimate given as a result of the Transport Bill is £55 million for socially necessary lines. If the hon. Gentleman wants more information, perhaps he will put down another Question.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Was not one of the purposes of introducing the Transport Bill to enable the deficit on the railways to be reduced? Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that this will not be achieved this year?

Mr. Carmichael: There is a later Question about that. The hon. Gentleman has the same trouble as his hon. Friend who asked about the deficit for 1968. We are not yet at the operative date of the Transport Bill when Questions on these lines may produce the information which hon. Members require.

Motorail Services

Mr. Awdry: asked the Minister of Transport how many motor rail services have now been provided by British Railways with a view to encouraging long-distance tourists to relieve congestion on trunk routes by conveying their cars by train over a major part of their journey.

Mr. Carmichael: I understand from British Rail that it now provides a total of 21 Motorail services.

Mr. Awdry: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a great potential in the service, and will he do all he can to encourage it?

Mr. Carmichael: It certainly has great potential. This is ultimately a matter for the commercial judgment of British Railways, which has extended the service this year. I am sure that it will look for opportunities for further extension of the service in the future.

Mr. Webster: What is the percentage capacity used on the service, and the percentage profitability on capital employed?

Mr. Carmichael: That is rather a lot to ask at short notice. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I shall be delighted to ask British Railways for the figures for him.

Railway Crossings (Automatic Barriers)

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a further statement regarding automatic half-barrier crossings on railways in built-up areas.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement on the result of the recent inquiries into the efficiency and safety of automatic level crossings.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): I would ask the


hon. Members to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of Questions tomorrow.

Mr. Lane: I look forward to that. In making the statement, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that whatever safety improvements may be introduced for such crossings in open country there remains very deep public anxiety about more of the crossings being installed in built-up areas, particularly in the vicinity of schools?

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that it is two months since the inquiry completed its detailed considerations? Will he give an assurance that his statement tomorrow will consider the position of existing crossings as well as those which might or might not be constructed in the future?

Mr. Marsh: The intention is to make a statement in the House and to publish the full report.

Main Line Electrification

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Minister of Transport what proposals for main line electrification he has received from British Railways during the past year; and how many of these schemes he has approved.

Mr. Carmichael: We have received proposals for further investment on the main line to Glasgow, which we are considering.

Mr. Baker: When is it likely that the work will be put in hand?

Mr. Carmichael: It is rather early to say. It is a very complicated and very expensive form of investment, and discussions are going on between British Railways and the Ministry on the possible profitability and desirability of such an extension.

British Railways (Financial Assistance)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the value of the grants, subsidies, capital write-offs and other financial assistance contained in the Transport Bill, to the revenue account of British Railways in 1969 and 1970.

Mr. Marsh: About £140 million in each year, inclusive of grants for un-

remunerative passenger services and surplus track and signalling expenses, relief of interest and depreciation on capital to be written off, and the transfer of the Board's "sundries" activities to the National Freight Corporation.

Mr. Mills: Is this fair competition to the hauliers, bearing in mind that many hauliers in the South-West would like the same facilities and aid being given to British Railways? Will he do something to rectify this unjust competition?

Mr. Marsh: No, Sir. With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. The figure of £140 million is not a direct subsidy from the taxpayer. It is a capital write-off which recognises that past investment has been unremunerative. The losses were made at the time of the investment.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Members on both sides of the House have asked for financial help to keep branch lines open in their constituencies, including the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills)?

Mr. Mills: When?

Mr. Marsh: This has always been the problem. It seems to me right that when a nationalised industry is asked to undertake financial obligations for social purposes it should be financed separately from the normal revenue of the industry.

Mr. Galbraith: Does the Minister's reply mean that next year the cost of the railways to the taxpayer will be £140 million as against £150 million this year?

Mr. Marsh: I am sorry to repeat it, but the hon. Gentleman totally misunderstands the position. The figure of £140 million is not a direct burden on the taxpayer. It is recognition of a loss-making capacity which was totally unrealistic, and if this debt were not written off the railways could never have got out of the position in which they have been for so long.

Freight Train Derailments

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Transport how many freight train derailments occurred in the 12th months ended 30th June, 1968; and what were


the comparable figures in each of the previous five years.

Mr. Carmichael: Firm figures for 1968 are not yet available, but there were 284 freight train derailments in 1967. I will, with permission, circulate the comparable figures for earlier years in the OFFICIAL REPORT. TO put 1967 figures in proper perspective there was an average of about 3 freight train derailments per million freight train miles.

Mr. Mills: But is not this a most disturbing situation? Some of us are deeply disturbed that a very serious accident will happen, with the loss of lives, before long. Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to overcome this problem, perhaps by reducing the speed limit?

Mr. Carmichael: The speed limit has been reduced on two occasions. It was reduced from 55 m.p.h. to 45 m.p.h. between 1963 and 1966. The Chief Inspecting Officer of the railways has discussed at length the whole question of freight train derailments with the Railways Board and is satisfied with the steps which it is taking.

Mr. Manuel: In order to avoid public anxiety arising from this Question, would my hon. Friend agree that British Railways are still the safest in the world and that the toll of deaths from accidents on the roads is teriffic compared with the toll on the railways?

Mr. Carmichael: I agree that British Railways are safer relatively than any other railway in the world. But that is no cause for complacency. If my hon. Friend and other hon. Members read the annual report of the Chief Inspecting Officer, they will see that the question of derailments is dealt with fully. The Chief Inspecting Officer is satisfied that the Railways Board is doing all that is necessary.

Following are the figures:


1963
…
…
…
188


1964
…
…
…
208


1965
…
…
…
235


1966
…
…
…
259


1967
…
…
…
284

The provisional figure for 1968 up to 30th June is 155.

Railways Board (Salaries)

Mr. Clegg: asked the Minister of Transport why the Deputy Chairman of British Railways has a higher salary than

the Chairman, and to what extent it is his policy that the Financial Director should also have a higher salary than the Chairman.

Mr. Marsh: Remuneration broadly similar to that received in his former employment is paid on a personal basis to one of the two Vice Chairmen of the Railways Board. This does not prejudice any future decisions about the salaries of present or future Board members that may result from the recent reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes of remuneration at the highest levels in the private sector and the nationalised industries.

Mr. Clegg: Is not the present position quite topsy-turvy? On this basis should not the Minister exchange salaries with his Minister of State?

Mr. Marsh: That is a course which had not previously occurred to me and one which I have no intention of pursuing. I think that it is recognised that the salaries of those in nationalised industries need to be reviewed and they are being reviewed. I do not think that this is an issue between the two sides of the House or that the blame lies solely on one side. I think that it is pretty fairly shared. It is important to get the best people that one can get to run industries of this size.

Railwaymen (Wages Award)

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Minister of Transport in view of the Government's prices and incomes policy, what estimate he has made of the additional cost to British Railways of the wage award offered to the unions; and how much of this will be recovered in increased productivity.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): The British Railways Board estimate that the total cost of interim settlement reached at Penzance will be £860,000 up to 2nd September, 1968. As my right hon. Friend told the House on 8th July, this is £170,000 more than the cost of the Board's offer on 22nd June. From 2nd September the interim arrangements will be absorbed into the main pay and efficiency settlement.

Captain Elliot: Would not the Minister agree that this settlement was made


under pressure from the Government? Does it not make a mockery of Government policy when concessions like this are made before productivity is guarantsed?

Mr. Swingler: No. This settlement was not made under pressure from the Government. It was made between the Railways Board and the unions. My right hon. Friend has made clear on many occasions that it is going to be part of a productivity deal which will offer important prospects for British Railways.

Rail Go-Slow (Financial Loss)

Mr. Silvester: asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the effect on the 1968 railway deficit of the go-slow which started in late June, 1968.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the economic and financial loss to the nation of the railway work to rule 1968, and associated labour disputes to date; and by how much he estimates the accounts of British Railways will additionally be in deficit arising from such disputes.

Mr. Carmichael: The work-to-rule cost the Railways Board about £3 million in net revenue. In industry generally a number of firms were inconvenienced, but the effect on exports and on the economy as a whole was negligible. The disruption of commuter services led to some small loss of output in London.

Mr. Silvester: Is the Minister saying that there will be no increase in the deficit as a result of this? Is he not aware that very considerable inconvenience was caused and that, as the result of the settlement, it appears to have been a wasted effort on everybody's part.

Mr. Carmichael: Of course there was inconvenience cause, and I said there was inconvenience caused. I think that in some ways it may have been exaggerated. As for the railway deficit, except for the period of the dispute, the results so far this year are encouraging, and the Board and the Government are confident that the deficit rate will be contained within the estimate.

Sir G. Nabarro: What is much more important is whether the Ministry is satisfied that the settlement reached with the railwaymen is likely to be a lasting settlement and that we are not going to have in a few months' time a repetition of holding commuters and others up to ransom, notably immediately prior to the holdiday periods?

Mr. Carmichael: Yes, obviously, the negotiations are very delicate, but there is every hope on the part of the Board and of the unions that an agreement can be reached, and we also hope, and have every reason to believe, that the agreement will be a once-for-all one and not a recurring phenomenon.

Mr. Tom McMillan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the railwaymen will be very glad that he used the term "work to rule" and not "go slow", because the railwaymen work to rules laid down by the railways and give a measure of productivity which continues all the time on the railways?

Mr. Carmichael: On the question of productivity, there is no doubt that the Board and the unions together over the last number of years have made great strides towards increasing productivity, and I hope that, following the discussions at Penzance, the negotiations which are taking place now will improve productivity on the railways.

Rail Accident (Sandridge)

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement on the preliminary findings of the inquiry into the railway accident at Sandridge on 12th June.

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Transport what were the findings of the inquiry into the fires which caused a fatal accident in a train at Sandridge on the St. Pancras-Bedford line on 12th June last; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marsh: The cause of the accident was a total seizure of a gear-box as a result of lack of lubrication. This led to the failure of a universal joint, which ruptured the main fuel tank. The fire which resulted spread rapidly along the underside of the two rear vehicles, but did not penetrate into the passenger accommodation. The inspecting officer,


who held the public inquiry on 2nd July, will complete and publish his report as soon as possible. Meanwhile I understand that the British Railways Board has decided to withdraw all vehicles of this type from this busy route as soon as this can be arranged.

Mr. Allason: I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that these two-car Craven units will be withdrawn. He will remember that I asked him to withdraw them some weeks ago and that he then refused—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a question.

Mr. Allason: How is it that the Minister will now withdraw them whereas he was not prepared to withdraw them at an earlier date?

Mr. Marsh: The problem is that the vehicles on this route have to be built to work over the City widened lines to Moorgate, where clearances are restricted. There are a limited number of vehicles which could be used on this service, but the problem is being studied by British Rail as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Longden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents are becoming very disturbed indeed at the increasing number of fires on this line and that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee has unanimously demanded an independent inquiry to report to Parliament? Will he say why, in the new design, the number of doors has been reduced from 20 to four?

Mr. Marsh: Because there was a great deal of interest in the matter, I should have liked to make an interim statement before the report was published, but I must ask hon. Members to await the publication of the full report in which the whole argument is discussed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Rail Go-slow (Controlled Parking Zones)

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Transport what advice was given to motorists by his Department at the commencement of the rail go-slow concerning the parking of vehicles in the

controlled parking zones in Central London.

Mr. Swingler: Responsibility for traffic arrangements lay with the Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis and City. In support of their advice to motorists my right hon. Friend issued a Press notice on 27th June reiterating advice on parking and showing the area in which parking meter charges were suspended.

Mr. Berry: Was there not some ambiguity in that many people parked at residents' meters without realising that they were not in a free zone although other meter bays were? Will he ask the police to exercise their discretion with the utmost sympathy towards anyone who has been summoned because of this?

Mr. Swingler: The police were asked to exercise their discretion and I think that they did so, but I will certainly look into that. There was no ambiguity in the advice which my right hon. Friend gave in his Press notice.

Traffic Lanes (Omnibuses)

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he has taken, in suitable cases, to provide on roads for which he is responsible or to ensure that road authorities provide in other cases, traffic lanes reserved for omnibuses so as to speed up public passenger traffic in towns.

Mr. Swingler: The volume of bus traffic on trunk roads is generally not high enough to justify bus lanes. In respect of principal and other roads we have advised local authorities that in preparing their traffic and transport plans they should consult bus operators and incorporate such measures as are needed to help public transport.

Mr. Wilson: Whilst I appreciate that there are a number of instances of traffic lanes for omnibuses in London and elsewhere, does the hon. Gentleman agree that some countries, particularly Sweden and Holland, use them much more than we do? Perhaps he would keep this well in mind.

Mr. Swingler: A number of local authorities are acting on this. I have a list of 11 local authorities which have put the proposal into operation, and I should be glad to supply the hon. Gentleman


with a copy. Many more are considering it. I am sure that it is a measure that will be increasingly adopted.

Speed Limit

Mr. John Lee: asked the Minister of Transport what stage has been reached in his review of the operation of the 30 miles per hour statutory speed limit.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): The Department recently published a Green Paper on speed limit policy which suggests that the speed limit for most roads in densely built-up areas should remain at 30 m.p.h. However, it also describes several types of urban road where a higher limit would not be detrimental to safety. These ideas will be thoroughly discussed during consultation.

Mr. Lee: Whilst I am grateful for the publication of the very useful discussion paper, would my hon. Friend agree not to be bound by the conclusions, and to accept that the 30 m.p.h. limit is violated in so many instances, and the law brought into so much disrepute, that the limit needs to be amended in a good many cases?

Mr. Brown: There are no conclusions; the purpose of the Green Paper is to have discussions, and we shall then reach our conclusions. I could not agree that the 30 m.p.h. limit should be abolished altogether, certainly not at present, because there is a high level of accidents to pedestrians and cyclists in urban areas.

Mr. Webster: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the biggest problems is adequate enforcement, that the Green Paper is very disappointing on criteria, and that there should be absolute clarity as to the limit to be enforced?

Mr. Brown: Irrespective of what limits we might care to impose, the police could never watch all of them all the time. It would not be sensible for them to attempt to do so. The right answer is to say precisely what we hope to do following the discussions on the Green Paper: to have the right limit which motorists will want to obey.

M1 and M45 (Emergency Warning Lights)

Mr. Speed: asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied with the operation and reliability of the emergency warning lights on the Ml and M45 motorways; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bob Brown: No, Sir, not entirely. Some time ago the emergency warning hazard signals were modified so that the police could switch them on or off from their vehicles without having to stop. Recently we have found that some of these signals, particularly on Ml, have been switched on and off by interference from air-borne electronic equipment. We are currently making investigations to eliminate this problem.

Mr. Speed: Is the Minister aware that in my experience the lights are flashing so often when there is no emergency that there is a real danger that motorists will ignore them when there is an emergency?

Mr. Brown: We are acutely aware of this problem, and that is why we are now taking remedial action.

Motorway Construction (Statutory Agreements)

Mr. Awdry: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has to simplify the procedure and reduce the number of statutory agreements to be fulfilled before a motorway can be constructed.

Mr. Swingler: Some simplifications of the procedure have been introduced over the past year. Further substantial improvements would require legislation, on which I would refer to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) on 19th June.— [Vol. 766, c. 1077].

Mr. Awdry: Does the Minister agree that existing procedures are now totally out of date? Would not it be better if more generous compensation were paid to owners and there were less opportunity of objecting?

Mr. Swingler: I am not sure that we can arrive at that conclusion until Parliament has had every opportunity of considering the matter. Important questions are raised here about the right of individuals and local authorities to object to


highway schemes. It is a highly controversial matter which will no doubt be considered by Parliament in the near future.

Road Signs

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Transport by what date all road signs in Great Britain will conform to a standard pattern.

Mr. Bob Brown: Most regulatory signs were converted by the end of 1967 and the remainder will be converted by the end of this year. My right hon. Friend hopes soon to consult representative organisations about terminal dates for conversion of the other signs.

Mr. Berry: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential in the interests of safety that signs should conform to a standard pattern as early as possible? Would he say something about the Minister's statement last week about the possibility of using kilometre road restriction signs and their cost?

Mr. Brown: We recognise the need for rapid conversion, which arises from the possible consfusion caused by differing systems of signing, on road safety grounds, better traffic flow grounds, and so on. I cannot recall my right hon. Friend saying anything last week about the metric system.

Motorways

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Transport what will be the total number of miles of motorway completed by 1st January, 1969, 1970 and 1971, respectively.

Mr. Swingler: For England and Wales the target figures are about 550, 600 and over 700 miles respectively.

Mr. Walker: By what year in the 1970s does the Minister of State hope that 1,000 miles of motorway will be completed, because the phrase "the early seventies" has always been used? Can he give a more precise date?

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate all the problems connected with statutory processes and other such matters. For example, recently a portion of the M4 has been set back on account of the incidence of foot-and-mouth disease. It is very difficult to

make such forecasts. In 1970 we hope to have completed over 700 miles and to have more than 200 miles under construction. Therefore, when talking about "the early 1970s" perhaps I should be so bold as to say "before 1973".

Doncaster By-Pass and Trent Bridge

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Transport in view of the fact that one of the newly constructed oil refineries in the Immingham area will soon be serving 400 tankers a day, up to 6,000 gallons each, and at the peak period over one tanker per minute, and that other new refineries will soon be in production, if he will now authorise the enlargement and strengthening of the main road to the Doncaster by-pass, and the bridge over the River Trent.

Mr. Bob Brown: Widening is in progress on lengths of the A.18 and A.160 and proposals for further widening on the A.18 and an extension of the M.18 are included in the forward programme. Other proposals for this route, including a new bridge over the Trent, are contained in the trunk road preparation pool.

Sir C. Osborne: In view of the fact that another great refinery will soon be coming into operation and that Immingham is likely to become a second Rotterdam, will he not give very high priority to a trunk road leading to Doncaster so that the oil traffic can get to the Midlands?

Mr. Bob Brown: The length of the trunk road between Thome and Scun-thorpe will be substantially improved by proposals announced in the second instalment of the trunk road preparation pool in April this year. One of these includes provision of a new bridge over the Trent at Keadby and the alternative of the present rail-road bridge which has recently been strengthened and resurfaced. This is as far as we can go at this time.

Mr. George Jeger: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the great need for improvement of all road and rail links in Humberside and that the overwhelming priority must be given to the Thorne canal bridge and Thorne by-pass?

Mr. Brown: I believe there is another Question on the Paper on the Thorne by-pass section which is scheduled to start in 1970.

Trunk Road Projects

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Minister of Transport what is the capital value of trunk road projects to be commenced in the financial year 1968–69; what percentage increase this represents compared with the financial year 1964–65; and what was the comparable percentage increase in the four-year period ended 1963–64.

Mr. Bob Brown: Authorisations in respect of new construction and improvements of motorways and trunk roads in England and Wales should total about £220 million in 1968–69, an increase of about 104 per cent. over the total authorisations issued in 1964–65 in respect of new construction and major improvements. The total authorisations for the four years are expected to exceed £750 million. The increase between 1959–60 and 1963–64 was 118 per cent. when the total new construction and major improvements authorised by the previous Administration over the four years came to only £394 million.

Mr. Michael Shaw: Is not the trend completely in the wrong direction, and what are the Government doing to reverse that trend for the future?

Mr. Bob Brown: No. Decidedly not. I do not accept this at all. The contemplated level of expenditure on new construction and improvements in 1968–69 is about four times the expenditure of 1959–60 and twice as great as the 1963–64 figure.

D-Ring Road (Harrow)

Mr. Anthony Grant: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the anxiety among residents, whether he has now reached a decision as to the siting of the D-ring road so far as it affects the Borough of Harrow.

. Mr. John Page: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement on the route of the D-ring road.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to make a further statement about the London D-ring road proposals so far as they affect the constituency of the hon. Member for Ealing, North.

Mr. Roebuck: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now able to make a statement about the proposals for the D-ring road so far as they affect the constituency of the hon. Member for Harrow, East.

Mr. Swingler: I cannot yet add to the reply given on this subject on 2nd July.— [Vol. 767, c. 221–2.]

Mr. Grant: Is the Minister aware that the people of Harrow will be very disappointed by that reply as they have been in a state of anxiety for a very long time? Will he explain why he cannot adopt the recommendations of nearly all the local authorities concerned? Will he confirm that he has had their recommendations? When does he expect to reach a decision on a matter which is causing great anxiety to the people of Harrow?

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Member will appreciate that a number of people are involved. There are the local authorities to whom he referred—the five boroughs who commissioned the Buchanan Report on the subject; there is the Greater London Council, who have primary responsibility in the matter; and we, too, are concerned in respect of grants. He will appreciate that all concerned have to discuss the points raised in the Buchanan Report submitted by the five boroughs concerned. I appreciate the concern about this matter. We are processing it as rapidly as possible. In the meantime, the Greater London Council has announced that it is prepared to buy owner-occupied property which is affected by blight or to consider any measures to alleviate hardship.

Mr. Roebuck: While I recognise that this matter has been under discussion since Professor Abercrombie was in vogue in 1944 and that my right hon. Friend has shown more activity about it than his predecessors showed, may I ask my hon. Friend to recognise that my constituents look for a very early decision, particularly if that decision throws out the G.L.C. scheme? To what extent has the decision been delayed by consideration of the report which has been prepared on behalf of the five local councils?

Mr. Swingler: Of course it has been delayed. We quite deliberately took the decision, on account of the representations made by the boroughs, to permit


them to commission consultants—Professor Buchanan and his partners—in order to make a study, and to permit them to make their comments on the G.L.C. proposals. We deliberately allowed that, and it delayed the consideration of the scheme. That was inevitable. Some weeks ago we received the report, which is being discussed among ourselves, the G.L.C. and the boroughs, and we shall endeavour to reach an agreement and to announce proposals as soon as possible.

A41 By-passes (Kings Langley)

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Transport when he will authorise the planned A41 by-passes from Kings Lang-ley to Tring.

Mr. Bob Brown: The scheme was included in the first preparation pool announced in February, 1967. Preparatory work is now fairly well advanced and we hope to publish the draft Order to establish the line of the road by mid-1969.

Mr. Allason: When will the Minister authorise the road itself? We have known the line of the road for a long time. What we need is the road, because we have a heavy congestion of lorries passing through a series of built-up areas, which makes it very dangerous to the local residents. When shall we have the scheme itself?

Mr. Brown: When the early preparation work is finished, the timing of the start will depend on when funds are available for trunk road schemes and when the scheme has the necessary priority compared with other trunk road schemes. Thereafter, progress could depend on the statutory processes and on the objections made to the proposals, if any objections are made.

Dovercourt By-pass

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a further statement on the Dovercourt by-pass for traffic by-passing Dovercourt High Street en route to Harwich dock yard.

Mr. Bob Brown: The proposed new road from Ramsey to Parkeston Road is already in the preparation list of principal road schemes. I assume the hon. Mem-

ber refers to its continuation eastwards into Harwich.
When the Essex County Council, which is the highway authority responsible, is ready to begin preparatory work on this second stage of the by-pass we shall consider including it in our preparation list.

Mr. Ridsdale: Does not the Minister agree that this road should be given every priority as it is a road to a very important port?

Mr. Brown: The question of priority is a question for the Essex Council, which is the highway authority.

Kingston upon Hull (East-West Communications)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of improvement to east-west road communications from the City of Kingston upon Hull.

Mr. Swingler: On the route running due west from Hull, the M62 is expected to be completed from Lancashire to Ferrybridge on the A1 by the end of 1972. Proposals to extend it to Gilberdyke on the A63 were included in the trunk road preparation pool in February, 1967, and are at present at a preliminary stage. Work is expected to start on the Elloughton by-pass on A63 in the autumn of 1969. A possible diversion of the trunk road in Selby is being investigated.
In addition there are schemes for improving the route in a south-westerly direction towards Doncaster.

Mr. Wall: Do these improvements include the approaches to the Humber Bridge?

Mr. Swingler: As we have said, that is taken into account in the elaboration of this very important and extensive network which my right hon. Friend has programmed.

Mr. James Johnson: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, because of its geographical position, Hull is the most isolated of the major ports? Will he not, therefore, accept that there is a need, at the earliest possible moment, for a first-class exit to the West, to the A1?

Mr. Swingler: What my hon. Friend said may be the position which we inherited from the past, but it will not


be the position when my right hon. Friend's programme has been carried out.

Sir C. Osborne: Despite the promise made at Hull in the General Election, will the. Minister resist the pressure for a Humber bridge and, instead, build roads in and out of the ports on the Humber, because we in Lincolnshire do not want the whole of the road traffic from Yorkshire?

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend will consider this matter in the light of the consultants' report but, whatever his prejudice, the hon. Member will be bound to acknowledge that we have programmed a most elaborate and extensive network to improve communications around Hull.

Mr. McNamara: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, although we recognise the importance of roads on both sides of the Humber, there is a definite need for a bridge across the Humber and that the Government are committed to the building of such a bridge? Is he aware that we on Humberside look forward to an early statement on the building of the bridge?

Mr. Swingler: As my hon. Friend knows, this matter is connected with other prospects for development on which we are awaiting the report of the consultants. The matter will be decided and announced by my right hon. Friend when we receive that report. In the meantime we are going ahead with investment totalling many millions of £s to improve communications to and from Hull.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Learner Motor-Cyclists (Training)

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in his discussions with local authorities on the proposal that they should assume responsibility for the scheme for training learner motor-cyclists which is now operated by the Royal Automobile Club/Auto-Cyclist Union; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Clegg: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for the training of learner motor-cyclists in the light of the recent report on this subject.

Mr. Swingler: Further discussions with local authorities associations on this are planned for next week.

Mr. Macdonald: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the report of the working party with its constructive suggestions was published a year ago and that four months ago I was told in answer to a Question that discussions with local authorities were complete? As the existing organisation providing this training is running at a loss, despite the grant it receives, is it not time that there were some signs of progress?

Mr. Swingler: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, but he will understand that there are many local authorities and that we wanted to give them the opportunity to express their views in writing. We have only recently collected all their views. I can assure him that there will now be no delay in proceeding with the discussions.

Road Safety (Reflecting Triangles)

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to ensure that portable red reflecting road accident prevention triangles which do not comply with the relevant British Standards specification are not used on public roads.

Mr. Bob Brown: We have no evidence of non-complying triangles causing danger.

Mr. Macdonald: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are triangles on sale which can be blown over or blown round in a breeze and therefore give no protection but merely a false sense of security? Is it not ridiculous to allow the import of triangles which do not comply with the standards which we require?

Mr. Brown: We are working to international standards for these triangles and it would be wrong to anticipate any change.

Motor Cars (Rear Windows)

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce regulations to ensure that private cars are provided with a means of keeping clear their rear windows, so that inside driving mirrors are of greater assistance to drivers in observing overtaking traffic.

Mr. Bob Brown: The United Kingdom is participating in discussions on this in the Economic Commission for Europe. My right hon. Friend will make a decision in the light of the outcome of these discussions.

Mr. Wilson: But I hope that something can be done about this soon. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most vulnerable parts of a car are the side panels, and that many fatal accidents result from a car pulling out and being struck a glancing blow by an overtaking car? Surely something can be done to prevent such accidents by insisting on provisions for clearing the back window of a car, so that the inside mirror can be of some use?

Mr. Brown: It is true that rear vision for the driver is essential, but this can already be achieved in a variety of ways. We do not consider that this is a matter of such urgency that we need to anticipate international action. We shall consider it again in the light of possible international regulations.

Hit-and-Run Accidents (Compensation for Victims)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement about the agreement with the Motor Insurers Bureau in relation to compensation for victims of hit-and-run accidents.

Mr. Bob Brown: I regret that the hope expressed in reply to the hon. Member on 19th June has not yet been fulfilled. Progress has been made in discussions with the Bureau, and we are still hopeful that remaining points of difficulty will be resolved, but until then we are not in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Why has there been such a delay, particularly since negotiations have been going on for more than two years? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no difficulties have arisen over the appeal procedure, which is absolutely vital to the satisfactory working of any arrangement?

Mr. Brown: I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment, but it takes two parties to negotiate and we cannot dictate

to the Bureau. There are outstanding difficulties on points of complex detail which are too lengthy to give at the Despatch Box.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Minister aware that there is very real anxiety over the delay in completing the negotiations? I recognise that there are two sides to them, but every week that passes without their being completed very real human hardship is caused.

Mr. Brown: I recognise that, but I remind hon. Members that the Bureau is always willing to consider representations, and victims benefit greatly from present arrangements. Over £1¼ million has been paid out since 1946.

Transport Bill (Representations)

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Minister of Transport how many letters and other representations he has received to date on the Transport Bill; and what percentage of these letters were, in general, opposed to the legislation.

Mr. Carmichael: We have received a great many representations about the Bill. They reflect a wide range of views on its merits.
But since so much opposition to the Bill has consisted of politically-inspired circulars displaying profound misunderstanding of certain of the proposals without any reasoned criticisms of the policy, I see no point in attempting an analysis of all the letters received.

Mr. Baker: As the Minister has not answered the Question, can he possibly answer this supplementary question? To what extent has he had representations from the fishing and agriculture industries, and what are their reactions to the proposals?

Mr. Carmichael: It is quite true that there have been representations from different bodies which have been worried about some of the misleading statements made about the Bill and from groups such as fishing and agricultural organisations, particularly in Scotland. The replies have stated the conditions imposed in the Bill, of which the hon. Gentleman should be aware, to the effect that, if it is more costly and more inconvenient to the consignor, the railways will not be given the job.

Mr. Bessell: In view of the importance of this piece of legislation, is it not essential that we should know the number of objections received which have been based on factual knowledge of the Bill?

Mr. Carmichael: This is extremely difficult, because some letters praise parts of the Bill and express worry about other parts. It is not simple to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests. I should say at a guess that my predecessor and myself have received 5,000 to 8,000 letters on the Bill, but it is very difficult to make an assessment of the number of those completely against, those completely for and the very large mass in the middle which are either ill-informed or approve of some; parts of the Bill.

Mr. Manuel: Is my hon. Friend aware that a great many of the letters which Members have received have been based on completely wrong assumptions of how the Bill will operate? Is he further aware that leading members of the Opposition Front Bench have visited certain constituencies and conveyed misleading and wrong information, which has certainly multiplied the number of letters?

Mr. Carmichael: My hon. Friend served on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill a bit longer than I did and heard the sort of statements which were made. It should not be any surprise to him that certain Members have been going round the country making even more misleading statements.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate is over.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when visiting some constituencies, particularly in Scotland, we find not only the letter writers but those whom we meet are against the Bill?

Mr. Carmichael: My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have travelled to Scotland quite a bit and seem to have met a quite different group of people.

Mr. Baker: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Goods Vehicles (Tachographs)

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Transport if it is his policy to require all goods vehicles which come

within the scope of quantity licensing to be fitted with tachographs.

Mr. Swingler: All goods vehicles over 30 cwt. unladen weight will, unless exempted, have to be fitted with tachographs. The requirement will therefore apply to vehicles subject to quantity licensing.

Mr. Walker: By what date does the Minister of State expect all vehicles to be fitted with tachographs?

Mr. Swingler: I cannot say at the moment. It depends on the supply position. This matter is now under discussion. We will proceed with the programme as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Bessell: How does the Minister of State propose that the legislation will be enforced if tachographs are not fitted to vehicles?

Mr. Swingler: We have had legislation for a long time on such things as drivers' hours without having tachographs. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how during the last 30 years that legislation has been enforced. This is a matter for the police. We said during the debates on the Transport Bill that we thought that the installation of tachographs was an important new enforcement measure to get a higher degree of respect for the law.

Ports (Public Ownership)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Minister of Transport (1) what is the latest estimate of the cost of nationalising the docks;
(2) if it is still his policy to proceed with legislation to nationalise the docks.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about the Government's intentions with regard to the nationalisation of the ports.

Mr. Marsh: As I stated on 19th June, the Government's decision to extend public ownership in the ports stands. Detailed proposals, which will take account of the consultations we have had and include proposals as to compensation, will be announced as soon as possible.—[Vol. 766, c. 1100.]

Mr. Lloyd: Is this yet another version of the menu without prices? Is it not


time that the country was given a much clearer indication of what this will cost; and, if so, how can the Government possibly justify expenditure on this scale at this late stage in the decline of their reputation?

Mr. Marsh: As the hon. Gentleman is not aware of what the scale of the expenditure is, I do not know why he is getting so heated about it at this stage. The organisation of the port industry is a very complicated one and the problems are very great. That is one of the reasons why it is important to take the ports into public ownership and why it is taking a long time to work out the best way.

Mr. McNamara: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that as already so much expenditure in our ports is public expenditure a great deal of the compensation that is to be given is to be given only to those who actually use the men in discharging the cargo? As dockers are not yet slaves, the amount of compensation is not likely to be all that great.

Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend is right to draw a distinction between public ownership in this field and public ownership in, for example, the steel industry. Much of the investment is already public investment.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Minister aware that the National Ports Council, the Confederation of British Industry, and virtually every user organisation connected with the ports are unanimously opposed to the nationalisation of the ports? Why, therefore, does he give this such a priority?

Mr. Marsh: Everybody accepts a very heavy degree of public ownership in the ports industry. This has been so for many years. The hon. Gentleman is being unusually doctrinaire on this issue.

Goods Vehicles Testing Stations

Mr. Rossi: asked the Minister of Transport by what date he now expects that the network of goods vehicle testing stations will be fully operational.

Mr. Swingler: By 1st October in England and Wales and 1st December in Scotland.

Mr. Rossi: I welcome the fact that there will not be another postponement of this scheme. How far has the Minister progressed in the recruitment of manpower for the testing stations? By what date will all classes of vehicles be covered?

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman obviously knows that we have had difficulties in the recruitment of manpower, but we are making steady progress. He is right to state that there is no intention to have any further postponement. Therefore, in spite of the fact that we are to have a three-months' delay because of the Minister's decision to make the postponement, we shall adhere to the original timetable announced at the time of the passage of the Road Safety Act.

Motor Cars (Safety Standards)

Mr. Rossi: asked the Minister of Transport what consultations he has had with British car manufacturers about a safety standards code; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Swingler: Discussion between the Ministry and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders about the introduction of new safety features in British made vehicles is a continuing process. The latest development is that described in my right hon. Friend's reply on 8th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson).—[Vol. 764, c. 74.]

Mr. Rossi: In view of the United States experience over the introduction of a code, does the Minister of State still consider the introduction of a code in Britain desirable? Does not sufficient machinery already exist for the setting down of safety standards?

Mr. Swingler: The position here is somewhat different on account of the Construction and Use Regulations which we have been issuing for very many years. My right hon. Friends have been taking continuously the initiative in the Economic Commission for Europe to try to get standard practices in Europe, and in that regard to take into account the American safety code. In this process we are working towards notification ourselves.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Hiley: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the progress which has been made in the Channel Tunnel project.

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Transport when he now estimates that the Channel Tunnel will be completed.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to announce a decision as to which of the private consortia submitting proposals for the financing and construction of the Channel Tunnel is to be selected for finalising this aspect of the project; and whether, in view of the tendency of construction costs to rise, he will take action to accelerate his decision.

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Minister of Transport if he is yet in a position to state which of the three groups tendering for the construction of the Channel Tunnel has been chosen; and when the tunnel is likely to be started and finished.

Mr. Marsh: The French Minister of Transport and I have been considering the proposals of the three private groups and I expect that we shall very soon make a joint statement of progress and intentions. I regret that it has not in the event proved possible to time that statement for announcement to the House today but it will, I hope, lead to an agreement with a selected financing group by the end of the year. On this basis, and if the resulting studies confirm the case for the tunnel, it should be possible to complete construction by 1976.

Mr. Campbell: I am glad that the Minister has been able to give this information. Can he estimate when the decision on whether or not to construct a tunnel will be taken?

Mr. Marsh: There is a good deal of work to be done. Inevitably, our French colleagues have been somewhat preoccupied of late with other matters, though this has not been a major factor. It is also a United Kindgom problem in that we are seeking to reconcile public and private participation in this venture and at the same time work together with the French. It is a complex job, but,

as I have said many times, before a decision is taken to go ahead with the tunnel there will be a major debate in the House.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: As this matter has been going for at least 12 years under intensive study, can the Minister give an assurance that, if it is possible, he will announce the result before the end of the Recess?

Mr. Marsh: I certainly hope that we shall be able to approve an announcement in a very short time.

Sir W. Teeling: Although we understand that the Minister had hoped to be able to give a definite answer today, and whilst fully appreciating that the French situation is a tricky one, can we be certain that before the Recess is over the Minister will make a public statement? Will he tell us how he will make it so that we can discuss it in some form?

Mr. Marsh: I came to the conclusion a long time ago that it was unwise for one to be certain about anything in this place above all others. I would certainly hope to be able to make a statement on this next stage in the course of the Recess, presumably by just making a public announcement. In all fairness, this is not purely a question of difficulties which the French have experienced. It is a very complicated exercise with very large stakes involved.

Mr. Deedes: Bearing in mind the answers given to Question No. 24, is the Minister satisfied that he has his priorities right?

Mr. Marsh: It is not a question of priorities. It is important to have a transport system which enables people to move rapidly around Britain and which transports people and goods in and out of Britain.

Transport Charges (Rate Burden)

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the additional burden in local rates which will be carried by residents in local authorities covered by passenger transport authorities in the year 1970 in consequence of the provisions of the Transport Bill relating to public transport reorganisation.

Mr. Swingler: Any cost to the rates of public transport in these areas will depend on the policies of the passenger transport authorities concerned. We cannot estimate something that will depend on local decisions.

Captain Elliot: Is the Minister aware that Government policy in several fields is having the effect of shifting the burden of taxation from central Government to local authorities and that it is important for the local authorities to know what this burden is? Will he get out an estimate in this case as soon as he can?

Mr. Swingler: No. I cannot agree with that. The Transport Bill, as I think the hon. and gallant Member will be aware, provides several new forms of financial assistance for public transport, such as bus replacement grant, capital grant, rural bus subsidy, and so on. These will be available, of course, to the passenger transport authorities. Whether they decide to run services at a loss or not is a matter, as we said, for local decisions. Therefore, we cannot estimate what the results will be.

Transport Bill (Redundancy Compensation)

Mr. Silvester: asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of providing compensation to redundant railwaymen in the five-year period commencing 1st January, 1969, and to lorry drivers made redundant as a result of the provisions of the Transport Bill.

Mr. Carmichael: Until the National Freight Corporation and other new bodies have been set up it is not possible to make a reliable estimate of costs likely to fall on British Railways or other authorities under Clause 130 of the Bill, which provides for compensation for loss of employment or worsening of position as a direct result of certain transfers or reorganisations under the Bill. The new licensing provisions in the Bill are not expected to reduce the number of driving jobs in the road haulage industry, as the industry will continue to grow.

Mr. Silvester: Would the Minister not accept that there is a great deal of concern, and that his optimism that the numbers of jobs for long distance lorry drivers will not diminish is not shared

elsewhere? If he is prepared to accept compensation for railwaymen, will he not accept the same principle for long distance lorry drivers?

Mr. Carmichael: No, the whole principle of the Bill and the quantity licensing provisions in it were based on the fact that we believe that the road haulage industry will continue to grow. We think it will grow up to 1975 by something over 10 per cent. and that there will be no difficulty in the lorry drivers getting jobs and no possibility of redundancies.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Minister not aware that the effect of quantity licensing could be that in certain localities, when quantity licensing has become effective, there will be considerable redundancy of long distance lorry drivers? What will happen in those localities?

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman knows that this was discussed at great length and he also knows that quantity licensing will come into effect only gradually and that any transfer of traffic to the railways will be more than offset by the total growth of the haulage industry.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Has my hon. Friend taken account of the condition that where freightliner trains are operating already the result may be that some long distance lorry drivers will be transferred to short distance work?

Mr. Carmichael: Of course, there may be a change in patterns of work, but the total tons mileage of the road haulage industry, as everyone concerned is well aware, is expected to increase over the next few years.

National Freight Corporation

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Minister of Transport what salary is to be paid to the Chairman of the National Freight Corporation.

Mr. Marsh: This has not yet been decided.

Bus Fares (North-East Essex)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement about the appeal notices, under Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, concerning the recent increase in


bus fares of between 30 and 40 per cent. in North-East Essex.

Mr. Swingler: Local authorities in Essex have appealed against an increase in the Eastern National bus company's fares, recently authorised by the Traffic Commissioners. My right hon. Friend will appoint an independent inspector to hold an inquiry and will decide the appeal in the light of his report. In the meantime I can make no comment on the merits of the case.

Mr. Ridsdale: As the inquiry is taking so long, will the Minister suspend this huge increase in fares? If not, why not?

Mr. Swingler: No, Sir. The hon. Member probably knows that these matters must go before the Traffic Commissioners. It has long been the law that there is no delay. Once the Traffic Commissioners have arrived at a judgment, the increase can be implemented immediately, but that is without prejudice to my right hon. Friend's decision on the appeal. I make no comment whatever on the merits, because my right hon. Friend has decided that there should be an independent inquiry and he will decide the matter on the basis of the inspector's report.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. May I have your guidance and, if possible, help, Mr. Speaker?
Today, we shall debate the Consolidated Fund Bill, which is well known to be a day when back benchers are able to bring the influence of Parliament to bear on the nation's affairs. Yet on this day we have two Government statements and, after that, Government business—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] This is important—and then a debate on a question of privilege. Not until after all that will start the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Is there any way in which the Chair can bring pressure on the Leader of the House to see that the rights of back benchers are protected and that back benchers are not treated in this disgraceful way?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will not be unaware that Mr. Speaker knows the heavy nature of the work that

not only the House but Mr. Speaker must undertake all this week. This, however, is a matter which the hon. Gentleman must take up with the Government, and is not a matter for the Chair.

WRITTEN ANSWERS (CORRECTIONS)

Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order. I seek your Ruling and guidance, Mr. Speaker, about a matter concerning the correction of errors in Ministerial Answers, the nature of which I have indicated to you. I have also given notice to the Minister concerned, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to column 95 of today's OFFICIAL REPORT? The following words are printed at the foot of the column:
DR. DAVID OWEN,pursuant to his reply [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1968; Vol. 768, c. 83], states that in relation to the Services families clinics in Malta doctors were not included in the quoted medical and dental complements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1968; Vol. 769, c.95.]
That somewhat circumlocutory sentence conceals a not insubstantial error of fact at column 83 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 10th July. This, it would appear, has come to light only as the result of further Questions by me printed in column 93 of today's OFFICIAL REPORT.
Is it in order for Ministers to correct factual errors in the way described, or, indeed, in any way, without the permission of the House, or without an appropriate explanation to the House? If such a procedure is not forbidden by rule, is there any custom or convention which should be observed about such matters and, generally, about the manner in which corrections should be made? It might be helpful if I indicated that I received no intimation from the Minister that this correction was to be made— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that I have been told, since taking the matter up with my hon. Friend's office, that a further error has come to light.
Erskine May appears to be silent on many aspects of this matter. However, a similar case was submitted to the arbitrament of Mr. Speaker Morrison, in 1957. On that occasion, perhaps by a coincidence, the Ministry involved was


the Ministry of Defence. The matter was raised by the then hon. Member for Eton and Slough, and in the course of his observations Mr. Speaker Morrison said:
The proper practice for a Minister or any hon. Member, if he wishes to make a correction in the OFFICIAL REPORT, other than a merely verbal one—that is, if he wishes to alter the sense apart from the terms in which that sense has been expressed—is to make the alteration in a separate statement to the House. He should rise and say, 'On that occasion I said this in error. The true facts are as follows …'".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1957; Vol. 563, c. 860.]
That case is not on all fours with the one I am putting to you, Mr. Speaker, but I submit that the spirit of Mr. Speaker Morrison's statement should apply; and I seek your guidance and Ruling on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice, on this busy morning, that he intended to raise this point of order.
The hon. Gentleman complains that in column 95 of today's OFFICIAL REPORT, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy has inserted a correction to an Answer which he gave to the hon. Gentleman on 10th July. That was a Written Answer.
I must point out to the hon. Gentleman and the House that it is a fairly general practice for Ministers who wish to supplement an Answer to a Written Question to do it in just this way. I would imagine that the precedent to which the hon. Gentleman referred concerned the correcting of something that had been said in the House. It occasionally happens that a correction of a Written Answer is made in this way. No doubt if a matter was of grave importance, the Minister would seek another way of making the correction.
I must, therefore, tell the hon. Gentleman that in my view this matter does not contravene any rule or practice of the House and is not, therefore, one in which I can help him. If, on the other hand, he is troubled about the manner and matter of the substance of the reply, then he must take that up with the Minister concerned.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Dr. David Owen): Further to the point of order

raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck), I would like to apologise to my hon. Friend both for the original mistakes in the Written Answer of 10th July and for any apparent discourtesy.
The mistakes arose in the line of communication between myself and Malta, for which I take full responsibility. I sought to correct the mistakes at the earliest opportunity. I wrote a letter yesterday to my hon. Friend explaining the situation, but, unfortunately, the letter was delivered to the Letter Board only this morning, and I apologise for that. I sought to follow the convention of the pursuant Answer, for which there are precedents, the latest being 26th February, 1968, and again I apologise both to my hon. Friend and the House for any discourtesy.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Roebuck: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would hope that, in view of what has just been said, the matter will now be closed.

ELECTORAL LAW (MR. SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Sir, I should like to make a statement about the Government's conclusions on the review of the law relating to Parliamentary elections.
The Government have studied the recommendations made in the Final Report of Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law and the Government's conclusions are set out in a White Paper, Cmnd. 3717, which is available at the Vote Office now.
May I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of expressing the appreciation of the House of the care which you, and the Members of this House who served on your Conference, gave to the review?
The Final Report of your Conference contains 71 conclusions, of which the Government accept 60. Of the remainder, four of the conclusions on which the Government differ relate to major issues. First, your Conference recommended by a majority that the minimum age for


voting should be reduced to 20. On the other hand, the Government have already announced their acceptance of the recommendation of the Latey Committee that the age of majority should in future be 18, and the Government accordingly recommend in the White Paper that the minimum age for voting should also be reduced to 18 years.
Secondly, your Conference recommended by a majority that public opinion polls and betting odds should be prohibited for 72 hours before the poll. The Government are not convinced that this is practicable.
Thirdly, while your Conference recommended no change in polling hours at Parliamentary elections, the Government consider that the present hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. should be extended so as to end at 10 p.m.
The fourth major recommendation from which the Government differ is that party labels should not be allowed on nomination and ballot papers. The Government's view is that these should be allowed if the necessary administrative machinery can be worked out; and I propose to consult the parties on this matter.
The White Paper also contains the recommendations of the Electoral Advisory Conference, which was convened at the same time as the Speaker's Conference to consider detailed questions on election procedure. The Government have examined these recommendations and the White Paper explains that we accept all but three of them.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has asked me to say that it is his intention to make arrangements for a debate on these matters when the House resumes after the Recess. The Government would then consider the views expressed during the debate with a view to the introduction of legislation next Session.

Mr. Maudling: We on this side of the House will wish to study these important proposals with care, and look forward to a debate on them in due course. May I ask the Home Secretary to explain a little more the reasons why the Government have departed from Mr. Speaker's Conference in the case of the minimum age for voting? The right hon. Gentleman said that the Conference recommended the age of 20 by majority,

but it was a majority of 24 to 1, and it took into account the views of the Latey Commission, published about six months beforehand. It will be for the benefit of the House if the Home Secretary will give some indication of the reasons underlying the Government's decision.

Mr. Callaghan: This is surely a matter which will need to be developed during the debate. It is quite true that the Conference voted by 24 votes to 1, on the question that the age should be 20 years, but the Motion that the minimum age should be 18 years was rejected by only 22 votes to 3.
The basic conclusions springs from the fact that the Latey Commission examined the situation very carefully, and decided, and the Government accepted, and the House has been informed, that the age of majority should be 18. This was for a number of reasons: the growing maturity of young people—the fact that they are growing older earlier than we used to, and the fact that it would be a little inconsistent to have an age of majority at 18 for all purposes, including the right to enter into contracts, the right to purchase property, the right even to marry, but not the right to vote for elective representatives.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I point out that the House cannot debate the issue now. We may, however, have elucidatory questions.

Mr. Maudling: Without wishing to enter into the question of the maturity of Ministers or of Opposition Members, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the conclusions of the Latey Report have been before Mr. Speaker's Conference for some time?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. But even the Government are entitled to their view on the matter, and the Government have expressed their view. There will now be a debate, when the House will have to decide whether it thinks that the appropriate age is 18, 20, or 21. It is the Government's view that it should be 18.

Mr. Strauss: In view of the long and deep consideration given to this problem by Mr. Speaker's Conference, and bearing in mind all the aspects of the Latey Report, may we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that when the matter


comes to the House for debate there will be a free vote, and that all Ministers will be free to vote as they think right?

Mr. Callaghan: Naturally, I have thought about this problem, because it affects the House as a whole. It is not for me to give the answer—that is for the Leader of the House—but, clearly, we must have a debate on the issue first. I have no doubt that a number of views will be expressed in that debate, but I would express the view that it is basically a matter about which hon. Members themselves will have to make up their own minds.

Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear what was the recommendation of the Latey Report? Did not that Report make it clear that we should not consider with the age of majority in private matters the age of voting and the age limit in public affairs? Does it follow from the Home Secretary's statement that he proposes to change the minimum age for jurors, the other subject on which the Latey Report distinguished its recommendations?

Mr. Callaghan: These are matters for debate but, as I recall the Latey Commission's view, the Commission did not say that we could not consider them together, but that it would be possible to consider them separately. They have been considered separately, and this is our conclusion.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all members of the Speaker's Conference consider the collective wisdom of that body as being rather better than that of the Cabinet—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the nature of the argument which is developing, may I say that Mr. Speaker is completely impartial.

Mr. Pannell: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, you interrupted my prefatory remarks. I was about to add the words "on this issue".
In view of the fact that the Latey Commission was not given this matter in its terms of reference, but that the matter was specially reserved to Mr. Speaker's Conference, which devoted many sittings to it, a far greater amount of time than the Cabinet could give it, does my right hon. Friend understand

that there is a flat duty resting on the Government, out of respect for Mr. Speaker's Conference and for other people, to allow a free vote on this issue?

Mr. Callaghan: I have already answered the question of the vote. Frankly, I have never known my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to believe that anyone's opinion was better than his on any subject; and I am not at all surprised that he considers his views superior on this. He also happens to be—and I think that I am entitled to say this—a member of the Labour Party, which has gone on record on more than one occasion at its annual conferences as advocating that the age of voting should be 18 years.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Home Secretary aware that we very much endorse the tribute that he has paid to you, Mr. Speaker, for the work you did in this Conference, which meant a very heavy additional burden to the other responsibilities you carry? Is he further aware that we welcome the flexible attitude which has been displayed by the Government on the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference? Bearing in mind that the single transferable vote was rejected by exactly the same majority as was the age of 18, will he allow this point to be determined by free vote of the House?

Mr. Callaghan: There will obviously have to be legislation, and I have no doubt that it will be possible to put down Amendments to any legislation which is brought forward, and that the House will reach a conclusion. I should not like any observations that I have made to be thought to detract from the work done by the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friends and others—I have already paid tribute to that—but there are 630 experts in the House on any electoral questions, and we are all entitled to have our own opinions.

Mr. Mendelson: Will the Home Secretary guard against accepting from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) any detailed analysis of what happened in Mr. Speaker's Conference, as the right hon. Gentleman suffers from the grave fault of not having been present at those discussions? The bare bones have been published, but will my right hon. Friend


accept that many other hon. Members had various views on the voting age— perhaps 19 or 19½ years? It was not by any means as clear-cut as all that. Will the Government stand firm on their decision?

Mr. Callaghan: I share the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) because I was not present either, but it seems to me that we have asked Mr. Speaker's Conference to discuss these matters and the House as a whole is grateful to our colleagues who have given time to the matter. It is now the responsibility of the Government to come forward with their conclusions and, later, for the House to debate them and to reach conclusions as a House.

Mrs. Ewing: Is the Home Secretary aware that the recommendation of the reduction of the voting age will be welcomed by the Scottish National Party? Is it not the case that when the voting age was 21 the average age at which votes were cast was 23, and that when the age is reduced to 18, as I hope it will be, the average age at which votes will be cast will be 20?

Mr. Callaghan: That is a matter that will have to be considered when the legislation is put before the House, but I would beg the hon. Lady not to draw too many lessons from the fickle jade Fortune. Fortune may smile on the hon. Member at the moment, but she also has reserve.

Mr. Coe: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us are delighted that the Government accept the principle of party labels on ballot papers? When the Government are framing their legislation will they take account of the idea of extending party labels to local elections, because it is here, perhaps, that there is more confusion than there is in Parliamentary elections?

Mr. Callaghan: I remember my hon. Friend's own initiative in the matter of party labels. I have been into the subject with some of my colleagues. There are administrative difficulties which I should like to discuss with the Opposition parties. If they thought and were all agreed that it was possible not only to accept the idea in principle, but to extend it from Parliamentary to local

elections, there would certainly be no governmental difficulty in the matter. But I think that what we will find in the end is that it will hinge on administrative practicality.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear assurance that the fact that the Government intend to introduce legislation relating to electoral law will not be used as a pretext for delaying prompt implementation of the recommendations of the Boundary Commission?

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman has a capacity for relating relevance to irrelevance. These issues are quite unrelated. When I receive the Reports of the Boundary Commission, as I shall in due course, I shall give them the same earnest consideration as I have given to Mr. Speaker's Conference.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a mass of business still to do. Mr. Crosland. Statement.

ALUMINIUM SMELTERS

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): With permission, I wish to make a statement on aluminium smelters.
I informed the House on 10th July that Alcan Aluminium (U.K.) Ltd. was proceeding with a smelter in Northumberland. The Board of Trade and the generating boards have now reached agreement with the British Aluminium Company and the R.T.Z./B.I.C.C. consortium on the major outstanding questions relating to their smelter projects. The companies will announce today their decisions to proceed with their smelters at Invergordon and Holyhead respectively, for both of which outline planning permission has been granted by the appropriate authorities. The arrangements are inevitably complicated, but I thought it right to inform the House immediately of their broad outlines.
The smelters will draw power from the generating boards under special long-term contracts based on the principles announced by the Government last autumn. The companies will pay an


operating charge and also a capital payment in return for which nuclear power generating capacity of the most advanced type will be earmarked to supply their requirements. My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Technology will arrange, subject to Parliamentary approval, to buy from the companies their rights in the relevant share of the plutonium arising in the nuclear reactors; the plutonium will thus remain under Government control.
The Board of Trade has agreed, subject to the approval of Parliament, to make loans to the companies at an interest rate of 7 per cent. under the Industrial Expansion Act. These loans, which will be of up to £29 million in the case of British Aluminium and £33 million in the case of R.T.Z., will be the subject of industrial investment schemes under that Act. They will be equal in amount to the capital contributions required by the generating boards. The necessary schemes, and a fuller statement, will be laid before Parliament in the autumn.
These two new smelters will each have an initial capacity of 100,000 tons per annum. This, together with the first 60,000 ton stage of the new Alcan smelter at Lynemouth, will provide a total new United Kingdom capacity of 260,000 tons per annum. All three companies have agreed to consult the Government before extending their capacity further.
I have informed the Norwegian and other E.F.T.A. Governments, and also the Canadian and U.S. Governments, with all of whom we have had a full exchange of views, of these decisions.

Sir K. Joseph: How long is it since Rio Tinto first proposed an aluminium smelter scheme to the Government? How many jobs, excluding construction, are expected to be created at Invergordon and Holyhead respectively? What is the cost of the power that the smelters will be using under the long-term contracts? Can other large continuous industrial users of energy make similar arrangements with the electricity industry?

Mr. Crosland: Of course, this has taken a long time to conclude—which is hardly surprising in view of the fact that what we are doing is, in effect, to establish an almost entirely new and very

important industry—and to take decisions which involve most important regional considerations and international considerations for a new type of power contract. I make no apology for the delay which has occurred. [HON. MEMBERS: "How long?"] I would much rather delay and have a satisfactory scheme than do what Ministers in the previous Conservative Government did— constantly rush into hasty contracts which they then had to cancel.
There will be 600 and 700 jobs approximately at Invergordon and Holyhead respectively, although the numbers employed during the construction period will probably rise to over 2,000.
Details of power contracts are never made public, nor will they be in this case.
On the last point, as to other possible applicants for this type of power contract, if anyone suggests a similar type of power contract we shall consider the case on its merits in the light of the principles laid down last autumn.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether his Department is satisfied that the social infrastructure —the roads, houses, schools and the rest —will be phased properly with the development of the smelter in Scotland? Can he say whether the time taken between the original decision of R.T.Z. and British Alcan and now is less than the 10 years which it took the previous Conservative Administration to get on with the pulp mill?

Mr. Crosland: On the first question, yes we are satisfied that there will be the phasing my hon. Friend has in mind. On the question of the time taken, certainly it is very much less than the 10 years my hon. Friend mentioned. Since the time when the Government invited these applications it has taken nine months for what, in effect, is an entirely new industry.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that his statement will give great satisfaction in Scotland, in Invergordon in particular? Is he further aware that the part played by the Scottish Office and the Highland and Islands Development Board in bringing these protracted negotiations to a successful conclusion is very much appreciated? Further, since the Government


have come to a decision, will the right hon. Gentleman do his utmost to ensure that there is an early start of the work on the project?

Mr. Crosland: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his opening remarks. I gladly join with him in paying tribute to the Scottish Office and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. On his last question, work will be started as soon as the companies find this practicable.

Mr. James Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this news will be received with great joy in Wales? May I congratulate him on the work which has been done? Now that we are beginning to establish these new and growing industries in the old industrial areas, will my right hon. Friend do his best to persuade industrialists to establish their industries, where possible, as near to the sites of the old industries, for the need for employment there is very great?

Mr. Crosland: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for paying tribute to the Welsh Office and its endeavours in this matter. As to the latter part of his question, a large part of the object of the entire regional policy is to attract industries and firms to the areas he has in mind.

Mr. Noble: May I add my congratulations to the President of the Board of Trade for having, perhaps rather slowly, acceded to the demands which I know he was getting from the Secretary of State for Scotland and from the Highlands and Islands Development Board? May I wish the new companies great financial success in their areas in the Highlands and in Wales?

Mr. Maclennan: Will my right hon. Friend accept that this decision will be regarded through the Highlands as a triumph and a break-through for industry which will lay the foundations for great benefits to come over a wide area?

Mr. G. Campbell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be relief in the North of Scotland that the Government have at last agreed to the site at Invergordon? Is he also aware that the

reference by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) to 10 years in relation to the pulp mill is completely incorrect? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what his estimate is of when the smelter at Invergordon will be completed?

Mr. Crosland: The smelter at Invergordon will be in production by 1971. I am obliged to the hon. Member for what he said in his opening remarks, but in the light of the extreme complication of this decision I would have thought that it would evoke, particularly from the hon. Member, a rather more generous reaction.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: Can the President of the Board of Trade state the price of electricity offered to the smelters, bearing in mind that the cost of electricity in other countries is very low? Can he give an assurance that there will be no need in due course for tariff protection of home smeltered aluminium, bearing in mind that competitors of aluminium—steel and other materials—will not have the advantages that aluminium has in this country?

Mr. Crosland: As the hon. Member must know, I cannot tell him the price. It is never revealed in contracts of this kind. I assure him, however, that it is completely unsubsidised. I can also assure him that there is no intention of imposing a tariff on aluminium imports.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Was the original application by R.T.Z. for a larger output than 100,000 tons at Holyhead? If so, will the reduction to an output of 100,000 tons have a bad effect in raising unit costs?

Mr. Crosland: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in supposing that the applications from each of the three companies were for a larger capacity than we are now going ahead with in stage one. The reason why, in agreement with the companies, we reduced the capacity in stage one was to reassure our E.F.T.A. partners that we would examine any possible adverse effect on Norwegian exports to us after stage one was completed. The addition to unit costs as a result of the reduction in capacity will be very small indeed.

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (MR. TAM DALYELL)

Second Report from the Committee of Privileges to be now considered.—[Mr. Peart.]

Considered accordingly.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) would like to say anything in answer to the Report of the Committee, the House will be very willing to hear him.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As this is a solemn occasion for a Member involved in this kind of situation, perhaps the House will allow me to stick to a short prepared statement.
As soon as I realised that an issue of privilege was being raised, I explained to the Leader of the House that I was deeply involved; and as soon as you gave yourprima facie Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I asked to appear before the Committee of Privileges.
I received a full and fair hearing and it would be quite improper for me to try to add to or subtract from what I said in answer to the Committee's questions or to attempt an explanation on any point.
In particular, I deeply regret any injury which I have done to the cause of scrutiny and inquiry in the House of Commons.
For the rest, it is right to leave judgment and decision to my fellow Members.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Member to withdraw.

Mr DALYELLwithdrew accordingly.

Mr. Speaker: May I announce at this stage that I have not selected the Amendment which appears on the Order Paper. This will not affect the debate in any way. There will be ample opportunity for the point of view expressed in the Amendment—and, indeed, any other reasons for disapproving the Motion— to be ventilated in the debate.

Mr. William Hamilton: May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker? I appreciate that I cannot criticise or question your Ruling. It puts some of us in a little difficulty in that the Amendment proposes an alterna-

tive course of action, whereas if the original Question only is put the House will be deprived of that choice. This would, therefore, probably influence the voting, if there be a vote at the end of the debate, to the disadvantage of those who have supported the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he has said. The last thing that the Chair would wish to do by its decision in selection would be to do anything which would influence the voting. The Amendment recommends that no further action be taken. The Motion asks Mr. Speaker to reprimand the hon. Member in question. These seem to be the two alternatives.

4.5 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move,
That this House doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report, and that Mr. Speaker do reprimand Mr. Tam Dalyell for his breach of privilege and his gross contempt of the House.
We have great sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who has made his apology with dignity. It is, however, an exceedingly painful duty for me, not only in my capacity of Leader of the House, but as Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, to ask the House to endorse the recommendation of the Committee that we should pass censure on one of our Members.
I find, to my relief, that the last occasion when such a Motion was brought before the House was 21 years ago. That is some consolation to those of us who are jealous of the honour of Parliament. That does not, however, make today's task any easier.
Before referring briefly to the Committee's Report and the happenings which led to it, I would like to pay tribute to my colleagues on the Committee for their collaboration in this distressing investigation and to say that the recommendations which we have made were unanimous.
The circumstances in which this matter arose emerge clearly from the Report of the Committee of Privileges. On 6th May, the Select Committee on Science and Technology held a meeting, at which


evidence was taken in private, at the Biological and Chemical Warfare Establishment at Porton Down. At that meeting the witnesses from the Ministry of Defence were given assurances that they would have an opportunity to sideline passages in their oral evidence, the intention being that, subject to the final discretion of the Select Committee, the passages so marked by the witnesses should be omitted from the published record. Subsequently, an unexpurgated version of the evidence taken on 6th May was put into the possession of members of the Select Committee. This bore an inscription to the effect that it was a confidential proof for the special information of members of the Select Committee.
On 26th May, there appeared in theObserver a report which appeared to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), the Chairman of the Select Committee, to derive from the Committee's procedings on 6th May. On my hon. Friend's initiative the matter was investigated by the Committee of Privileges, when it transpired that the hon. Member named in the Motion had handed a copy of the confidential proof to Mr. Marks, of theObserver, on the understanding that, subject to its being checked against D notices, he was at liberty to use it as source material for a report which he was preparing. All this has been freely admitted and is common ground.
The procedural background to this matter is quite straightforward. By a Resolution of 21st April, 1837, it is a breach of privilege if evidence taken by a Select Committee is published by any member of the Committee or any other person before it has been reported to the House. The rule is on record at page 119 of Erskine May, and I would have thought that it would be well known to any member of a Select Committee. In case there were any doubt about it, however, the members of the Select Committee were reminded of the rule by the Clerk to the Committee, on the instructions of the Chairman of the Committee, at the outset of the investigation which led the Committee to Porton Down.
It is true that in a Report published last December, which has not yet been debated by the House, a Select Committee on the Law of Privilege recommended that the 1837 Rule be relaxed

somewhat. But in paragraph 130(b) of that Report the Select Committee recommended that the premature disclosure of Select Committee proceedings conducted in private should still be a breach of privilege.
I mention that because, when Mr. Speaker'sprima facie Ruling was debated on 28th May, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) sought to persuade the House not to remit the matter to the Committee of Privileges on the ground that the report in theObserver was a legitimate report on a matter of proper public concern. I see that he and others of my hon. Friends have put down an Amendment disagreeing with the action recommended by the Committee of Privileges.
If my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he may, for all I know, disagree with the Committee's findings of fact, if those remain open to argument, or he may disagree with the Committee's view on the action which should flow from them. I submit to the House, however, that the rule as it stands is not open to question. It is a rule of the House and we are all bound by it, just as the Committee of Privileges was.
Since the great weight of censure falls on my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, it is right that I should refer briefly to his attitude when he appeared before the Committee of Privileges on 19th June at his own request. He admitted—indeed, he volunteered the information—that he handed a confidential proof of evidence to Mr. Marks. He made plain that he personally took full responsibility for that. He accepted that he should have known, if he did not know, that premature disclosure was a serious matter, and he apologised profoundly to the Committee.
I mention those matters not with any thought of bowdlerising his evidence—it is on record in full—but to make the point that, however seriously the House may regard the offence, the hon. Member in question has not sought at any stage either to conceal or to share with anyone else his responsibility for it. Today, I applaud my hon. Friend for the way in which he has approached this matter and for his dignity in the House. If it is capable of being admitted in extenuation of the offence that it has been freely admitted and responsibility for it fully


assumed, then I think that that much can be accounted to my hon. Friend's honour.
I need spend little time on the action recommended by the Committee. The Committee recommends that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian be reprimanded by Mr. Speaker for a breach of privilege and a serious contempt of the House. This is a serious step for the House to take, but I think that the reason is plain. It is our duty to protect the rights and privileges of the House. The Clerk of the House put the matter to the Committee, and it is fully explained in paragraph 8 of its Report. Our Clerk
reminded the Committee that the purpose of parliamentary privilege is to give to Members the minimum degree of protection, without which they could not effectively carry out their duties in the House of Commons".
The paragraph continues:
Your Committee are particularly concerned that the unauthorised disclosure which occurred here should have taken place at a time when experiments are being made with the greater use of Select Committees. These Committees depend largely for their success on the existence of mutual trust and confidence between their Members and those who appear as witnesses before them; this confidence would be greatly imperilled by any failure to observe the rule of the House by all those concerned in the work of the Committees.
It is only right that we should regard with great gravity an offence committed by one of our number. In regard to Mr. Marks of theObserver and his editor. Mr. Astor, the Committee was of opinion that both committed a contempt of the House, but recommended no further action. Here again, the reasoning is clear. Mr. Marks plainly went wrong, but in his ignorance of our customs he failed to look behind an assurance which he received in good faith that no question of privilege arose. Mr. Astor should have known better, but was more remote from the occurrence.
That is as much as appears to me proper for me to say at this stage. As I have said, the recommendations which come before the House reflect the unanimous view of the Committee of Privileges.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: The purpose of tabling the Amendment

which, in your discretion, Mr. Speaker, you have thought right not to call, was not in any way to minimise the gravity of the offence committed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Still less was it to challenge the authority of or the respect in which the House holds the Select Committee of Privileges. In my view, what my hon. Friend did was a grievous error of judgment born, I think—here I speak purely as an individual—of a curious mixture of innocence, ignorance and arrogance.
Speaking as the Chairman of a Select Committee of the House, I think it reprehensible for any Member to abuse his membership of such a Committee by divulging, as my hon. Friend did, information given to him by virtue of his membership of such a Committee, and given, moreover, on the basis of confidentiality. Indeed, if a member of my Select Committee had behaved in the same way as did my hon. Friend on this occasion, I should have felt obliged to take the same course of action as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Therefore, so far as I am concerned, any vote which may be cast tonight must not be taken as condoning or justifying my hon. Friend's actions. As the Leader of the House has said, my hon. Friend has frankly admitted to the gravity of his offence in relation to the privileges of the House. There are, however, certain mitigating circumstances which I feel the House, in its generosity, ought to take into account.
The first, which is not unimportant in view of the precedents, is that my hon. Friend was not motivated by any thought of financial gain. He made none and he expected none. What he did he believed to be in the public interest. The second mitigating circumstance which I think the House ought to take into account is that nothing of a security nature was divulged, though that may have been fortuitous, judging from the evidence given to the Committee of Privileges by Vice-Admiral Sir Norman Denning, Secretary to the Services Press and Broadcasting Committee. A service has been rendered to the House in this respect if only for the evidence which


we have from that gentleman as to the danger in which our security is placed if it is in the hands of people like this. I say no more on that point.
There is a further factor which cannot be ignored—my right hon. Friend touched on it—and that is the responsibility of Mr. David Astor, the editor of theObserver. There are certain conventions, not rules but practices and traditions, in the relationships between Members of the House and the Press. Leaks of all kinds take place every day in this building in conversations between hon. Members and Lobby correspondents.
It is quite clear from the evidence by Mr. David Astor that he regarded the obtaining of this confidential information from my hon. Friend as a scoop for his newspaper. He was not too concerned to ascertain authoritatively whether publication would be a breach of privilege. So long as he was satisfied that there would be no breach of security, he was clearly ready to risk committing a breach of privilege if that was the only way he could exploit his scoop.
The Committee of Privileges agreed that Mr. Astor committed a contempt of the House, but recommended no further action. Why? He was in it. He was an experienced newspaperman, and knew what he was up to. He knew the risks he was taking, and yet the Committee recommends that no action be taken against him.
I can understand why the Committee recommended that no action be taken against Mr. Marks. He is apparently inexperienced in Parliamentary matters and procedures, and one might accept that as a reason for taking no action against him. But that reason could certainly not be adduced for taking no action against Mr. Astor. I think that there has been a double standard of justice here as between the treatment suggested to be meted out to my hon. Friend and the journalists concerned.
There is a further consideration. Many of us think that my hon. Friend has been punished enough, and that he has made apology enough. The House is a generous place, and it should not seek to rub salt into wounds at this moment. I do not want to see any hon. Gentleman on either side of the House standing up and being rebuked by Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend has made an

error of judgment. Let us accept that. He will get other punishment that has not yet been spoken of. He will presumably have to resign from the Select Committee, or he will be taken off by the powers-that-be, and that in itself is a great punishment for my hon. Friend. Therefore, let us not seek to extract the last ounce of humiliation from him.
There is a much larger issue at stake. What the Committee was discussing was a very secret, and in some respects very sinister, research establishment. At least there is a deep suspicion that a good deal of sinister activity is going on there, and my hon. Friend, rightly or not, thought it his duty to throw the light of publicity on to that establishment.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: I shall give way in a moment.
My hon. Friend will be regarded by the public as of much greater significance than any decision the House may take on the Motion. The general public are not concerned with the technicalities of Parliamentary privilege. They are concerned with what is going on at Porton, and what they suspect is going on there.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is Chairman of the Estimates Committee and I sit under him. Is he suggesting that I, as a member of his Committee, should discriminate on what I should give to the Press, or that I should tell the Press anything that happens within the confines of a Select Committee and not be rebuked for it?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to what I said earlier. I said that I was not for a moment condoning what my hon. Friend had done.

Hon. Members: Hon. Members: You have.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on a very grave issue. Noise does not help.

Mr. Hamilton: What I was saying was that my hon. Friend has suffered punishment enough, and that the House should be generous enough to say so, to say, "Let us forget about it now, and let us tell the public more about what the hon. Gentleman was trying to tell them". Perhaps he was trying to do


it in a mistaken fashion, perhaps in a fashion that is unforgivable to some people, but at any rate the Government have conceded the case to some extent by having open days at Porton. That is not enough, but at least they have conceded that light should be thrown on what had previously been dark places.
Therefore, the House would be doing itself a great disservice if it passed the Motion without challenge and I and my hon. Friends will go into the Division Lobby against it.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: These debates, which, fortunately, occur rarely, are perhaps the most painful in which hon. Members take part, because we are asked to examine and pass judgment on the behaviour of one of our colleagues.
It seems to me that there are really three questions. First, do we agree that this was a serious breach of privilege and disclosure? To that I say unhesitatingly, "Yes". Second, how do we regard the behaviour of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)? Third, having answered those two questions, what action should the House take? The seriousness of the matter lies in the fact that such disclosures would in the future inhibit witnesses from being frank and giving information to Select Committees. I echo what the hon. Member for Hamilton said—

Mr. William Hamilton: Fife, West.

Mr. Thorpe: That is not the only mix-up going on north of the Border at present.
The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) was perfectly correct in what he did. As the Chairman of a Select Committee, he was wholly right to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. On 6th May, when he was asking Mr. Gadsby, the Director of the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment, to give evidence, he said, at question 1005:
Might I be allowed to interrupt here. The Committee did talk, as you know, privately, and I was asked to say we hope you will be frank with us. We appreciate you have obligations in these matters, but we hope you will be as frank as possible with us, because we shall consider with the utmost sympathy any requests of sidelining.

In other words, it was hoped that witnesses would be very frank because the Chairman gave them his personal undertaking that matters which they felt should be kept confidential would be sidelined. Therefore, as one who believes that we should see a very wide extension of the principle of Select Committees, I regard this as something of a setback to that innovation, and I regret it. Accordingly, for me, the answer is that this is a serious disclosure.
With regard to the second matter, the hon. Gentleman's behaviour, I think that the evidence, particularly on pages 13 and 14 of the Report of the Committee of Privileges, shows that he has done nothing but make a complete disclosure and a very frank and full apology to the House. The Leader of the House, who was speaking on behalf of the House as a whole and not on behalf of the Government, generously echoed what many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen felt about the quality of the statement the hon. Gentleman made.
I echo what the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) said. The hon. Gentleman's motives were clearly not dishonourable. They were, perhaps, the motives of an unwise Member who has been well-known for having an inquiring frame of mind, and in certain matters he has not been without success.
So we come to the third question: what should be the position of the House? We are first asked to accept the Report and then, in particular, to accept the recommendation that the hon. Gentleman be reprimanded. Just as the right hon. Gentleman speaks for the whole House, I hope that every Member who speaks may be interpreted as speaking for himself and nobody else. I am not quite certain what we now achieve by going through the ancient machinery of a reprimand by the House. It may be that some hon. Members feel it to have some special significance. The House has always been magnanimous. Probably there is no assembly more ready to accept withdrawal and a full apology than the House of Commons.
I have been involved in one or two debates on privilege and I was professionally concerned as counsel for a person referred to the Committee of Privileges, and it has always been my view that when a person has made a very full apology,


withdrawal and expression of regret, the magnanimity of the House takes over. Therefore, I should like us to consider why we feel it necessary to go on to this final stage. The Leader of the House has not indicated the reason, and perhaps there may be an indication why that course of action is thought necessary.
In my view, there has been a serious disclosure. I do not underestimate it. It could have a dangerous effect, were it not checked, on the future development of Select Committees. The hon. Member has been unwise, but he has apologised and he has expressed his regrets, which I think are sincere and without qualification. I hope that the House will be very careful before they think it necessary, in the light of all the circumstances, to take the ultimate step which the Committee have recommended to it.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I well appreciate that there may be some hon. Members who, quite genuinely, believe that the best way to deal with this matter would have been to have no debate and simply to leave the matter, following the statement by the Leader of the House. The reason why I believe that we should debate the matter is not only that I wish to say something about the actions of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), but, also, that important public issues are at stake which should be debated in the House.
First, I claim—and I think that nobody will be able to deny it—that the function of the whole House of Commons in these matters of privilege is somewhat different from the function of the Committee of Privileges itself. I say that partly because I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who sought to move the Amendment to the Motion and who said that when we put that Amendment down we were not doing so in order to reflect either upon the labours or upon the decision of the Committee of Privileges. When the members of the Committee of Privileges discuss a matter of this nature, they are necessarily bound by precedents. The first thing which happens in the Committee is that they have to examine the precedents, and to a great extent they are bound by precedents, or at any rate they take them into account. It is partly on the precedents

that they make recommendations. That is why the precedents are quoted in the documents.
The position of the House is somewhat different. There have been many occasions on which the House has received the Report of the Committee of Privileges making recommendations for action and the House has decided not to take that action. Either hon. Members have decided to take an action in contravention of the recommendation of the Committee of Privileges, or they have decided, in their wisdom, having heard the recommendation, that they should take no further action. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House interjects, in some cases it may have been so that they could take stronger action.
I understand that, and it proves my case. I am seeking, first, to assert that the House as a whole has responsibilities in the question of privilege which go beyond those of the Committee of Privileges and that the House has taken into account factors which are of a more general character than those taken into account by the Committee of Privileges.
Among the precedents quoted in the document which we have befor us, it is extremely interesting to see that there have been at least two cases—the cases most similar to that which we are considering —in which the House took the same kind of course as is being recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West and myself. Hon. Members who look at page 54 of the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence will see the recommendation of the Select Committee in 1899 which referred to the activities ofThe Times at that date. The Report of the Committee of Privileges stated that the premature publication of "confidential and privileged documents" had become
part of a regular system ofThe Times newspaper.
The Committee recommend that the proper remedy to deal with that situation was that the Lobby representative ofThe Times should be excluded from the Lobby. That was the recommendation to the House, but the House decided to reject that advice—which confirms the point which I am making.
There was a second case in 1901. I am sorry to say that, again, the offence had been committed byThe Times. I


am not a critic ofThe Times. I am referring to the Report. On that occasionThe Times had published confidential documents, and the Committee of Privileges
recommended that the Speaker should exclude the representative ofThe Times from the inner lobbies of the House or take any other steps to prevent a repetition.
Instead of that being voted upon by the House, the Report was ordered to lie upon the Table and to be printed. No further action was taken by the House.
On the ground of the precedents concerning the action of the House on recommendations of the Committee of Privileges, I claim that we should be acting more in accordance with precedent if we followed the advice given by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West and myself than if we followed the advice of the Leader of the House. I hope that that will convert any hon. Members who think that in the advice which we are giving we are acting outrageously. We are not doing so. Those who wish to abide by the precedents may vote with us in the Lobby in the firm assurance that they are acting in conformity with previous decisions.
I turn to the first public issue which I believe to be involved. It is not only a question of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian to whom I shall refer in a moment or two. It is also a question of the relations between this House and the newspapers, between Fleet Street and the House of Commons. I have spent roughly half my adult life in Fleet Street and the other half in the House of Commons. There exists between the two institutions what a psychologist might describe as a hate-hate relationship.
Having worked in both places, I can say that the world looks very different from Fleet Street than from Westminster. It would be very unwise of hon. Members, particularly when we are supposedly rebuking one of our own Members for arrogance, to assume an attitude of arrogance in these matters, because there has been occasions—I put it no higher —in disputes between this House and Fleet Street on which Fleet Street has been right and the House of Commons has been wrong.
Indeed, anyone who has studied the history of privilege will see that whereas privilege in the days of Queen Elizabeth was about the protection of freedom, by the time of George III it was being used to oppress freedom. The sword for freedom was changed into a shield of secrecy. If that happened—I am not saying that it has happened again—it could happen again. Many of the civil liberties about which we boast most strongly in this country were established only by breaches of privilege. Nobody can deny that.
Freedom of the Press in this country originated as a breach of privilege. It could happen again. It was discovered in the House of Commons and in the country in the 18th century that the technical requirements of the House of Commons were in conflict with the principles of freedom and eventually, I am glad to say, the principles of freedom won.
I make not a claim but a prophecy— and prophecies are always safer than claims: my prophecy is that this dispute will lead to such developments in the future. It is not an exoneration of the attitude or action taken by my hon. Friend to say that, but I believe it to be a fact that the outcome of this dispute about what went on at Porton, what provisions were made to examine it and whether those provisions were enough will become in the years and decades ahead much more important than technical question of privilege, however important they may be.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will believe me when I say that I am jealous of the dignity of the House. I wish to see Parliament sustained as the primary institution of free debate in this country. But one of the most offensive actions I recall was a decision to proceed with the manufacture of atomic weapons without the House or the country being informed. That was a disgraceful situation. There is some dispute even as to whether the Cabinet was informed.
Now, there are questions involving the manufacture of even more devilish weapons. We have a Select Committee examining that matter and one of the purposes of a Committee of this House should be to expose to the public in


the maximum degree what is going on. That, I believe, will be the issue associated with this matter in years to come much more than the question of privilege. If my prophecy is correct, and as a result of this affair much more is revealed about what is happening at Porton, and we discover eventually whether or not this country is manufacturing offensive weapons of this nature, then the debate will be associated in history with much more than any question of privilege.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Is not one of the difficulties here that, if a Select Committee of the House is to get information from Government Departments, there will be an end to its work if there is no confidentiality? If any trust is to be betrayed by a Select Committee, then Government officials and others will be unable to give it information.

Mr. Foot: I will come to that issue. Of course, I realise the importance and significance of what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) says. But I am seeking to establish at the moment that this is not only a question of the hon. Member concerned, but of what newspapers should print. Although strictures have been passed upon the editor of theObserver, I must say that he also had to take account of public interest, or what he conceived it to be.
What I am arguing now is that, very often, the public interest as conceived in Fleet Street is different from the public interest as conceived in this House, and this House should not be so arrogant as to think that it is always right and Fleet Street is always wrong. I have proved from history that, on major issues of freedom, Fleet Street was right when often the House was wrong.

Sir Tatton Brinton: If this is a defence of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), surely the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) must be inferring that the indiscretion of the hon. Member for West Lothian was deliberate and not merely foolish or inadvertent.

Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman will follow my argument more carefully he will realise that I have already emphasised

that this is not only a question concerning my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian and his fellow members of the Select Committee, but also of the relationship between this House and Fleet Street. That is the aspect with which I am dealing at the moment.
In this respect, I think that it would be going very far if the House were to insist that Fleet Street should never make inquiries or seek to publish matters before Select Committees of the House have reported, particularly on matters of this nature, where there may be attempts by the Government to suppress information which should be published in the public interest. That is what I have argued. I cited the case of the manufacture of atomic weapons to prove that there have been cases where secrecy has been much too great.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Perhaps I may again contradict a myth which still appears to be alive. The announcement that the Government were manufacturing atomic weapons was made in March, 1947, a few weeks after the Cabinet had decided to do it. The announcement was made in this House by the then Minister of Defence, Mr. A. V. Alexander.

Mr. Foot: There was correspondence, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) engaged in detail, over that matter. Two views were taken about it. I shall not go into detail, but certainly, in my opinion, on a judgment of the correspondence, much too much secrecy was involved in the decision to go ahead with the manufacture of atomic weapons. I believe that the same thing should not be permitted to happen again with biological weapons.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is anxious to be fair. Would he not give credit to the Select Committee as a whole for the decision to go to Porton? Should it not be left to make its own report in its own way at its own time?

Mr. Foot: I understand what my hon. Friend says. I have not attacked the Select Committee. Nor have I so far, although I intend to, attempted to make a defence of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian.
All I am arguing at this point— and it seems that I have an obstacle race on— is that much wider issues are involved and that, when the House considers questions of privilege, it is advisable for it not to be too assertive in its own rights, thinking that it is always right and that those outside are always wrong, because people in Fleet Street who have to make decisions as to whether or not to publish matters about this kind of thing or anything else are also concerned with the public interest. We should not presume to say that they are not.

Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker: My hon. Friend says that an important issue of Press freedom might be involved here. Surely all that is really involved is that theObserver could have waited a little while until the Report was published, but that it published it because it was able to jump the gun on all the other newspapers.

Mr. Foot: If it is to be a crime in Fleet Street to jump the gun, then all the editors will have to be arranged. If it is to be a crime in Fleet Street for any newspaper to seek information on this sort of thing and publish it, there will be many others in the dock. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Some of my hon. Friends may dislike what I am saying. If they will study the question of privilege, as some of us have sought to do—

Mr. J. T. Price: Do not be arrogant.

Mr. Foot: —they will see that, on many occasions, this House has made a fool of itself and has had to withdraw from the position it originally took up.
I come now to the extremely important question of the confidentiality of evidence presented to the Select Committees. Of course, I appreciate what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire and others about the grave injury, to put it no higher, to the operation of these Committees if there are to be no rules and regulations about how the matters are to be released. I think it wrong for any member of such a Committee—and I have been a member of one of them—to take it upon himself to reveal such matters. It is a grave fault, as, indeed,

my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian has acknowledged. But that does not end the matter, either.
On this matter, also, the House of Commons must consider the representations made to it by the Press on these matters. For many weeks, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) and others, I sat on the Committee of Privileges examining this amongst many other questions. The idea that our law of privilege and our way of operating it is clear and satisfactory is not the case. The evidence of the Committee of Privileges was exactly to the contrary.
We examined the way in which privilege operated and we came to the conclusion that drastic reforms were needed, drastic reforms of the manner in which a question was brought to the House, drastic reforms in the manner in which it should be dealt with, so drastic that we proposed the abolition of privilege in its present form altogether. That is what is in that Committee's Report, referring precisely to Select Committees, which is mentioned in the memorandum by Sir Barnett Cocks.
However, I am sorry to say that the information in that memorandum is misleading. It is a false representation of what appeared in our Report, because our Report did not say merely what is said in Appendix 2 of this Report. The Appendix refers to our recommendations, but it excludes an essential paragraph at the end of our recommendations of what should happen about Select Committees. We said that all these matters of privilege should be subject to the drastic reform of the law of privilege which our Committee proposed. That is left out of the quotation in the memorandum which refers to the critical paragraph 48 of our Committee's Report in which we said that the whole question of privilege should be transformed from top to bottom.
Since we produced our Report there has been much dispute between us and many of the representatives of the newspapers. They still do not like our recommendations. I think that this is because they have not examined them properly. If they did, they would see that we proposed the best way of trying to combine the right of freedom to print, on which the newspapers exist, with the right of confidentiality, on which the House of Commons


wishes to insist. It is very difficult to combine the two. It is because it is not a simple problem that we took a long time to discuss it, and that is why we produced a rather complicated formula to deal with it, but I think that it does deal with it.
If the Motion is carried, my hon. Friend, the Member for West Lothian will be reprimanded for a breach of privilege. Apart from other reasons, this will be serious, because it will occur when the House has been unanimously invited by a Committee, which it set up, completely to transform the law of privilege. Apart from any other reason, it is unjust that my hon. Friend should be censured when a Committee of the House has said as strongly as it could that the whole procedure under which privilege operates is quite wrong and should be transformed. I believe that on that basis, too, the matter should not be proceeded with.
It has already been acknowledged that when my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian appeared before the Committee he spoke quite openly. Nobody has made any charge against his honour, his honesty or his candour. The same is true of everyone else who appeared before the Committee. He has committed a grave fault, but I have known grave faults to be committed by other hon. Members.
One of the strengths and subtleties of the House of Commons is something which is very little appreciated outside the House, I am sorry to say, much too little appreciated in Fleet Street, and it is that each Member performs his duty to the House in a different way. If every hon. Member were to seek to try to discharge his obligations, as he regards them, to the House by participating in debates such as this, the whole thing would come to a standstill, and we all know it. We all know that there are degrees and variations and permutations in which an hon. Member can seek to perform his duties to the House.
None of these includes revealing what has happened in a Select Committee and, of course, I appreciate that. However, I believe that my right hon. Friend was right in the course which he adopted, because it is legitimate and worthy to try to get at the truth in this matter. Nobody in the House doubts my hon. Friend's diligence or honesty. Despite his fault, anyone who knows the service which

he has given to the House will know that it has been conspicuous. I could not join in any censure upon him, particularly in view of all the circumstances. Much the most dignified and fitting way for the House to deal with the matter would have been to adopt the line suggested in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), but, unfortunately, we cannot do that.

Mr. Peter Bessell: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great care. Does he agree that the most important facet of this whole case is that there was no breach of security and, that being so, that it would be far better to drop the whole matter?

Mr. Foot: I agree, but that has not been part of my argument. I have not argued whether security was involved, because the confidentiality of these Committees and the desirability of protecting them depend not on whether security is involved but on trying to ensure the orderly transaction of business in Committee.
Security does not arise in that sense. it arises in the sense that this is a highly sensitive matter. It will be seen from page 12 of the Report that some of the matters which it was sought to exclude from public discussion were matters which ought eminently to be discussed all over the country. The more they are discussed, the more worthy that will be for democracy in this country.
I therefore urge hon. Members to agree with the views of those of us who believe that it would be wrong to proceed to censure my hon. Friend in view of all the circumstances, and I urge hon. Members to vote against it if the Government do not withdraw the Motion.

4.57 p.m.

Sir Spencer Summers: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) began by saying that he had spent half his life in Fleet Street and half in the House of Commons. I erroneously assumed that he was spending the second half in the House of Commons, but by the time he had finished speaking I could not help feeling that we were listening to the voice of Fleet Street and not that of a Member of Parliament. He completely destroyed his own case by the arguments which he advanced in


favour of it. He told us that it was a mitigating circumstance for Fleet Street to publish what it did and that there might be many occasions when it was, so to speak, patriotic to publish information so obtained. What he failed to recognise was that that information might not be obtained because of the breach which we are now discussing.
The hon. Member also made the mistake of claiming that the House of Commons had views different from those of the Commitee of Privileges. Because he did not like the views recorded in the Report of the Committee of Privileges, he sought to dissociate himself from that Report. However, he called in aid another Report which the House has not yet considered, but which suited his book. He cannot reject one Report because it does not suit him while claiming another because it happens to suit him.
I agree with him that we are dealing with matters far beyond the precise questions with which the Report deals, or the precise form in which a rebuke or some other sentence may be passed. It is not in dispute that the willingness of witnesses to disclose information to a Committee depends completely on the assurance they have that what they say will be treated in confidence until such time as the Committee has decided whether any of the evidence shall be sidelined. Those who seek to justify eliciting information by such processes as are recorded in the Report, are mistaken.
Consider for a moment what might be the position of the Committee concerned with the Ombudsman, when it may find that the name of a civil servant is, in the initial draft proof, recorded as having said this or that. It may be decided, for very proper reasons, which we can understand, that it is not wise for the name of the individual concerned with the particular case which the Committee has been examining to appear in the final report which is made public.
If there is to be revelation in advance of that kind of sidelining, the very instrument designed to assist the public against abuse of power by the Executive will be destroyed. This, therefore, is another aspect which does not come readily to mind.
We are told that before the cross-examination at Porton there was a meeting

of the Committee. Among other things, a discussion took place as to whether there should be positive vetting of members of this Committee before hearing evidence that might be highly confidential. After discussion, which is naturally not recorded in the Report, the decision was taken to rely on Parliamentary Privilege as an alternative form of security to the positive vetting of members.
I noticed with some interest that during the cross-examination of one or two witnesses an attempt was made by the Committee to discover why the suggestion of positive vetting was not accepted. Every time that question was asked it was evaded. The reason why I refer to it now is because of the importance which I attach to the proposition of Privilege as an alternative to positive vetting of members.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the hon. Gentleman explain exactly what this term "positive vetting" means?

Sir S. Summers: I have never had the experience of being positively vetted, so I cannot give any first hand account, but my understanding of it is that those who are positively vetted, if they pass the test, are deemed to be safe to be given certain information which would not otherwise be given to them. How this is accomplished is not for me to say, because I have no experience of it.
There is another aspect to this, and here perhaps I shall be a little nearer to the thinking of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. Members enjoy a quasi-immunity under certain headings, from security checks. It is not so many months since we were informed by the Prime Minister of the situation about the tapping of telephones of Members of Parliament. We were told that only in very exceptional circumstances would such a resort be adopted.
This makes it all the more important, if Members are to be in this quasi-privileged position, that they should make quite certain that they do not abuse it, as clearly happened in the case before us. I want to register my protest, and I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is listening, at the content of his speech today, coming from one


who is the Chairman of the Estimates Committee.
The hon. Member tried to cover his tracks by saying what a terrible thing the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) had done, and went on to say that, of course, he felt the need to reveal things which he thought were going on, which he, the hon. Member for Fife, West perhaps would not like if they were going on—that that kind of motive excused him, mitigated, to use his own word, the offence which he acknowledged had been committed.
If that had come from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale I would not take exception to it, but I draw a marked distinction between arguments of that kind coming from someone in the position of Chairman of the Estimates Committee and someone who does not hold that position. What the hon. Member for Fife, West has done by his attitude, and the tabling of the Amendment, is to diminish confidence among members of his Committee that he will support them in upholding the traditional way in which security is dealt with in the Committee.

Mr. William Hamilton: I cannot allow that to go without challenge. I made the specific point that if a member of my Committee did what my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) did, I would take the same course of action as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer).

Sir S. Summers: That is no answer at all. Of course, the hon. Member would be expected to report such a proceeding, to find out whether a breach of privilege had been committed. What I am concerned about is that, having reported, heard the evidence and having discovered without a shadow of doubt that the offence had been committed, he then thinks that nothing should be done about it. That is what I take exception to.
I go along completely with those who pay tribute to the statement made by the hon. Member for West Lothian this afternoon. There is only one thing about which I was sorry—that the notion of his resigning from the Committee had to come from another hon. Member, rather than himself. I asked myself why that aspect of the matter found no place in the Report. I suspect that the reason it is not there is because it was assumed

that the work of the Committee would come to an end at the end of this Session. I know that that is not the case, and that the work is going on. If it was known that it would have lasted to the end of the year or even longer, it is all the more disappointing that no reference was made to it. I agree with those who say that the hon. Member was certainly not a knave but certainly a fool; mad if you like, but not bad.
The Leader of the Liberal Party asked why any form of punishment should be meted out. If the question of privilege is regarded as an alternative proposition to positive vetting, if new Committees are created whose success depends almost exclusively on the willingness of witnesses to speak freely, confident that should they wish something to be sidelined, it will be so sidelined, if we are to place such reliance as that on the question of privilege, then it is essential to uphold that principle, not to take something out of the hon. Member, but to establish the importance which we attach to this proposition, to encourage others to believe that we mean business when we have a report like this, and that we will do something about it.
It is for these reasons that I go along with the Committee, and I do not support in any way the diminution of the outcome of its Report.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I want to take up with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) some proposals which he put forward in his most powerful speech. He said that half of his life had been spent in Fleet Street, and half in the House of Commons. He will not take an insult from me if I tell him that I think that primarily his eminence rests on the fact that he is a writer of distinction and a journalist, although undoubtedly he is a more eminent Parliamentarian than I.
I have spent many years in this House, and he will not deny me as much jealousy as he feels about this institution. Professor Bronowski said that a wrong to any group in society can only be judged in the context of the group that considers itself wronged. That is why all his precedents were false ones. All the precedents were precedents from the Press.
We are doing today with regard to theObserver what our grandfathers did. Give me a precedent when the House has retreated from the punishment of its own Members. We have always judged our own Members more harshly than we have judged people outside. We must do so, because this place, unless it is a fraternity, unless it is a comradeship, is nothing. We must judge the wrongs which are done within this group.

Mr. Thorpe: rose—

Mr. Pannell: No, I will not give way. I have not got far enough in the argument which I want to develop.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale will know my interest in this matter, because we were both Members of the same Select Committee on the Law of Privilege, of which the distinguished Chairman was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will catch the eye of the Chair. I rebuke the Government for the fact that they had to wait till this mess occurred before they implemented the Report of that Select Committee. We are almost dealing with the Reports of Select Committees as Governments deal with the Reports of Royal Commissions.
I want to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). It would have been far better had we implemented that Report, because then we could have dealt justly as between my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and the editor of theObserver—not exactly in the way that my hon. Friend would have done, because the impression made on me by Mr. Astor was that he was a rather lazy, sloppy editor, who hardly knew what was happening in his own establishment and did not want to know.
To my friends who say that there is a double standard, I reply that this is the difficulty and this is the law. We could have imprisoned the editor, but we could not have fined him. The punishment is so immutable. Therefore, the law on privilege is due for a complete overhaul in every way.

Mr. John Lee: Was not there yet another alternative which was used in the case of Mr. Arthur

Heighway? The editor could have been summoned to the Bar of the House.

Mr. Pannell: At all costs, I would have avoided the mediaeval pantomime which will follow this debate. However, there was no way out. The precedents are deeply set as to what is to be done with Members. With regard to strangers, there is an altogether different procedure. When John Junor came to the Bar of the House, I do not think that the dignity of the proceedings of the House was elevated.
I want to rationalise the Committee's Report. I am not saying what took place during our proceedings, but I would have preferred that we issued the rebuke within the context of the Report if we could have done so, but Committees cannot take that upon themselves. Committees cannot reprimand Members. It is for the House to do that. Again, it is for the House to decide the form of it; and it is so deciding today.
I am not unacquainted with the history and customs of the House. I believe that this Report, in view of all that the Committee was faced with and in view of the precedents, it a compassionate Report for my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. Let us make no mistake about that. When thoughts of humanity are put on one side, what my hon. Friend did was of grave concern to the House. I am not happy—nor is my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale—with the idea of the extension of Select Committees. They have in them the seeds of great mischief. However, there are Members of the House who want the Committee system to be extended. What happened in this case? The Ministry of Defence was rather loath to give certain evidence. Positive vetting was put about. That obviously would be an absurdity for Members of Parliament, because we are all honourable Members. But were we? One was not honourable on this occasion, for whatever reason.
In effect, there was an agreement. The Ministry of Defence was negotiating and the Committee itself agreed at a special meeting, at which a letter was sent to everybody, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, that the only defence the Committee could have and the only defence that the Secretary of State for Defence could have


was that of privilege. That was a compact entered into.
Let us come to the particular. I beg hon. Members not to allow any Member of the House to fall to lower standards than those they themselves would observe. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West would not have done it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale would not have done it. Everybody who will speak today will say, "I would not have done it". I tell the House that to condone an unworthiness is an unworthi-ness in itself.
I can think of all sorts of smug people in the bureaucracy—civil servants and goodness knows who—who will say, "That has cracked them. We have discredited the Select Committee". In part, they have discredited this Select Com-niitee. This Select Committee device has been discredited, because Ministers in future will continually pray in aid the Dalyell incident when they are pressed to give information which the House wants. That is the degree of offence against all of us. When all is said and done, it is not true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party contended, that there was no security issue. There are certain things which are sidelined in this Report.

Mr. Thorpe: I never said that.

Mr. Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman's colleague said it.
I will answer that assertion. There are certain things that a member of the Select Committee cannot say. Every member of the Select Committee knows the security issues. It was purely fortuitous that these matters were not further divulged, because this document rested in theObserver office over all the weekend for any office boy to pick up. It contained matters which were sidelined and as to which pledges had been given to the effect that they would not be divulged. It is true that there is no venality, but when all is said and done does not the giving of this Report betray a degree of carelessness which is not consistent with public office and at least needs to be marked in the most emphatic manner of disapproval?
This House has always been stern with its own Members. I would have wished that another sort of reprimand could have taken place. But there is a

soft centre to the House, too. It is in my own party, in which we get terrifically excited about great battles and then, when the crunch comes, we all turn round and say, "Wash it out. It never meant anything. He apologised properly". That is not good enough. Stern justice has to be seen at the end of the day on the record. Another occasion will occur in the future.
The appeal which I make to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is one which he will be sensitive to. We have not only got to act in justice to my hon. Friend who is in great trouble. We must also act in justice towards all our colleagues—towards each and every one of us. I rather think that a far better turn would have been done if my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian could have been saved today from his friends, if we could have left the matter with that dignified apology.
I say this, I hope, with no condescension and intending no offence. We on the Committee of Privileges came to a unanimous verdict. I will say now what I said earlier about the Cabinet. Whatever may be thought about us individually, collectively the Committee of Privileges is a fairly formidable body. At the end of the day this was almost a conspiracy by the older Members of the House to save a young man from the consequences of his own actions. On all the precedents something like suspension could have been justified. I would not have wanted that. We decided on reprimand, because that is part of the calendar; that is part of the precedent. The Select Committee can only recommend this punishment.
At the end of the day, it is for the House, with as much honesty and generosity as I hope it credits me with, to take its decision.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The membership of the Committee of Privileges is so distinguished that its collective wisdom must be almost as great as that of the Speaker's Conference and certainly far greater than that of the Cabinet. It is, therefore, with some diffidence that I question what it said in one respect. However, it seems to me that in its attitude to the Press it somewhat misdirected itself because it appears to have felt that the duty of


the Press was the same as the duty of Members of Parliament, and that is not so.
What the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) did was plainly wrong, but the fact that it was plainly wrong for him to give the information does not necessarily mean that it was plainly wrong of theObserver to print it. In my view, when a Member of Parliament gives a document to a journalist, it cannot be thought that it is the duty of either the journalist or the editor to say, "Good heavens, perhaps we had better not print this. It may be a breach of privilege. Are you sure that it is not?" If a newspaper gets a document in good faith from a Member of Parliament, it is entitled to print it because it is its duty to print the news and not to suppress it.
There is an analogy in the law which supports the suggestion that while it may be wrong for one party to do something it is not necessarily wrong for the other party. Whereas most people think that it takes two to commit adultery, in the law courts there is an agreeable custom whereby the court often finds that, although it has been proved that A committed adultery with B, there is no evidence that B committed adultery with A. That is the case in this instance. TheObserver was doing its own proper business in printing the news which it had acquired by the most reputable possible means.
If the House wishes, as indeed it does, to control the news which emerges from it, it should exercise that control over Members of Parliament—it has discipline and the means at its disposal—but it should not attempt to control the Press by dredging up issues of privilege. No doubt this was a breach of privilege in 1837. But the last time that a newspaper was severely criticised for this sort of thing appears to have been in 1901. And I do not think that it follows that newspapers should be criticised in the same way today. Apart from anything else, present-day Select Committees are rather different from Select Committees set up in the nineteenth century, and, although I agree that security matters should not be published, it seems to me that the point of these Committees very largely is that they should lead to a great deal more

public disclosure than we have had in the past. The House should not discourage as much Press interest being taken in these matters as possible.
Where there are arrangements for the mutual benefit, or what is thought to be the mutual benefit, of the Press and the House for the control and publication of news, like the giving to Lobby correspondents of reports in advance of their being given to Members, it is for the Press to abide by those arrangements. But this case does not come into that category, because there is no benefit to the Press in not publishing news in advance of its publication by all. Provided that the Press does not publish things against the public interest and matters which involve securty—and theObserver seems to me to have behaved perfectly properly by telephoning Admiral Denning about the D Notice question—and provided it carries out its responsibilities with due regard to national security, it is doing all that it should do.

Mr. Bessell: Has the hon. Gentleman seen on page 18 of the Report the very proper question which the Leader of the Opposition put to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about whether the copy which he handed to Mr. Marks had the special notice on it saying that it was only for the use of Members of Parliament? In these circumstances, did the newspaper act properly?

Mr. Gilmour: In my view, yes. It is not the job of newspapers to censor themselves when there is no other objection to the news being published. There is a clear distinction between what the hon. Member did and what the newspaper did.
We must face the fact that politicians break the rules whenever it suits them. At the time of the South African arms matter, we were regaled with a series of stories about what was going on in the Cabinet. Nobody suggests that Lobby correspondents made up those stories; they were "leaked" to them. Surely it is perfectly obvious that the maintenance of Cabinet secrecy is of far greater importance than the postponement of the publication of evidence given to a Select Committee.
There are "leaks" the whole time. There was an example of one today. I refer to the question of votes being given


to people of 18 years of age. Every newspaper carried that story last week. Earlier in the week there were "leaks" about raising the cost of the television licence. There are rules and conventions to the effect that these matters should be first disclosed to the House. The Government and Ministers break the rules when it suits them and presumably when they think that disclosure is in the public interest.
But I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that newspapers are also entitled to their judgment of the public interest. The Government are not the only people who are allowed to say what the public interest is. It would be very odd if journalists refused to publish "leaks" from the Cabinet or in advance of a Government announcement on the ground that it would break the conventions of the House. But if they are to be censured for carrying out their duties in a responsible way over Select Committees, it is logical that they should refuse to join Ministers in breaking the conventions which apply to Government announcements.
My conclusion is that, whereas the Committee had every justification to censure or criticise the hon. Member for West Lothian, it is a pity that it followed the precedent of 1837 by also censuring or criticising the editor and journalist concerned. It would have been far better if the behaviour of the journalists had been left out of the matter of privilege altogether.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Like probably many hon. Members, I spent many hours yesterday reading, re-reading and reading yet again the Report and the evidence given to the Committee in the hope that I would find some loophole which would enable me to ask the House to exercise greater clemency towards my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) than the Select Committee recommends, just as I asked it to exercise clemency in connection with the last complaint made before the House which concerned the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing).
I read the Report and came to the reluctant conclusion that there was nothing in the recommendations or the Report with which I could quarrel, except pos-

sibly that the Report was unduly fair to the newspaper concerned. I say that in the light of an intense desire, if possible, to avoid the penalty which is proposed for an hon. Member, who is a friend of mine, whom I regard as honourable and sincere and whom I have trusted and still trust. However, I could find no way of making such a recommendation.
In those circumstances I would not have spoken to the House at all but for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I feel it necessary to do so, particularly as I had the privilege of being Chairman of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege to which he referred, in order to express my point of view and in order to correct what I regard as some misconceptions which he put before the House as to what that Committee proposed and as to what its views were.
Let me first of all say with regard to my hon. Friend whose conduct is now in question that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) have both drawn attention to and emphasised the possibility that there may be occasions when the public interest in revealing information which a Member is possessed of may exceed the public interest of his duty to this House. I would not deny that such occasions may possibly exist, but that is not the case made by my hon. Friend whose conduct is in question. He does not say, "I revealed this out of a sense of public duty because I believed it right and necessary for me to do so." On the contrary, he said to the Committee, "I was wrong to reveal it. I know I was wrong to reveal it. I apologise for revealing it. It was due to my own arrogance"—and I use his own words—"that I did so." If there were any reason for asking that the penalty which is recommended should be mitigated it would not be the reason advanced by my hon. Friends but rather the humility displayed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian.
But bearing even that in mind, and giving it every possible credit, I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale has himself in his argument gone far to destroying even the argument based upon that humility, because what he has invited this House to do is to have regard to certain precedents 50 years or


more ago when this House took a merciful course. In doing that he has drawn to the attention of this House that if in 50 years' time some Member does the same sort of thing as my hon. Friend has done now it will then be possible, if we inflict no penalty upon him, for the House, in those days 50 years ahead, to look back and say, "Well, they did not take this disclosure so very seriously, and therefore it should not be taken so very seriously now."

Mr. John Rankin: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend if he thinks that 50 years hence we shall still be acting under the inspiration of a Resolution which the House passed on 21st April, 1837?

Mr. Silkin: I very much hope not, but what I do hope is that the Resolution will be amended in the sense that I am about to come to in dealing with the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege which in substance retains the principle behind that Resolution.
Now I come to that Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale has suggested that the whole of the law of privilege has been washed away, that it has been recommended that it should be washed away, by the Report of the Select Committee of which I was Chairman and he has drawn attention, and he is perfectly correct in drawing attention, to the fact that an extract quoted in the Report which we are now debating is not a complete one. He is quite correct to draw attention to paragraph 48 of the Report of the Committee of which I was Chairman, for that Report said, and I think the House should be aware of the contents of it, in paragraph 15:
… Your Committee posed in paragraph 11 "—
of that Report certain questions and added:
the general principle which has been accepted in the past is summed up by Erskine May in the proposition that Parliament should use its power to protect itself, its Members and its Officers, only to the extent 'absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers'.
Those are almost the very words which are used in the Report which we are now debating. Paragraph 15 continued:

Your Committee accept this proposition as broadly establishing the proper approach in modern times to the subject matter of their terms of reference.
The Committee, then, accepted that what had been stated over many years in Erskine May was the right principle. It went on in paragraph 48 to explain that principle in modern terms, and it did so suggesting that:
The House should exercise its penal jurisdiction in any event as sparingly as possible, and only when it is satisfied that to do so is essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House … from … improper obstruction … or … substantial interference with the performance.
of its duties.
That is the cardinal point, and it is precisely that which the Select Committee whose Report we are now considering found that the hon. Member for West Lothian had done. It is precisely because they found that by his disclosure he had been guilty of improperly obstructing the House in the performance of its duties that it came to the conclusion that it is inviting this House to accept. It is precisely because it took the view that, if hon. Members make disclosures of this kind when evidence is given to a Committee under a promise of confidentiality, those witnesses will not give that evidence, and this House will not be in a position to exercise its duty to examine the facts of the very matters my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale suggested this House has the duty to discover; it would be preventing this House from doing that very thing.

Mr. Edwin Brooks: Is it the case that witnesses were given assurances of confidentiality? As I understand the whole procedure over sidelining, they were given assurance that requests they might make would be sympathetically considered by the Committee.

Mr. Silkin: Well, precisely. They were given assurance that any request for sidelining would be considered. The Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) made it quite clear that a great deal of the evidence was of a very sensitive nature. He asked them to be particularly frank, and he said that because it expected them to be frank we would be particularly careful about sidelining.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: The actual words the Chairman used were:
We shall consider with the utmost sympathy any request for sidelining.

Mr. Silkin: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: There was no guarantee.

Mr. Silkin: Of course there was no absolute guarantee. I did not suggest there was. There was a very clear promise to those who were giving evidence that they could do so under the reasonable certainty that anything which was really a matter of security would not be disclosed. Witnesses will not give information to the House, unless they are compelled to do so, if that kind of undertaking is not honoured. That is why, in my submission, it is an improper obstruction of the House in the performance of its duties to reveal information given in those circumstances. That is why, however much sympathy I have with my hon. Friend, I find it impossible to take a different view from that of the Committee.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Was there disclosure of anything as to which a request for side-lining had been made?

Mr. Silkin: As I understand the matter, there have been two requests for sidelining, one before and one after the disclosure. Because of the disclosure, the second has been different from the first. But that is not the point. The point is that this document contained un-expurgated material. It might well have contained, and for all I know did contain, matter which was extremely secret. It was sent to a newspaper office and it was kept there for several days. I regret to say that my hon. Friend, for whom I have every respect, allowed that to be done—and that is the gravamen of the charge against him.
I come to the newspaper concerned. It is true that in the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privileges it was said that this House has always been sharper in its approach to offences by its own Members than to those by strangers. In paragraph 18 of the Report we find a quotation from the evidence of the Clerk of the House, in which he said,

As a matter of interest, the punishments administered by the House in this century have been far sharper on its own Members than on strangers. In the whole of this century two strangers only have been admonished at the Bar by the Speaker, two newspaper editors.
I recognise that it is right that the House should expect a higher standard from its Members than from strangers. But, having said that, I cannot accept the view which has been put forward by some hon. Members and by certain organs of the Press, and particularly byThe Times on the day following the raising of this complaint, that the question whether a newspaper should take advantage of material which it knows to have been revealed to it improperly by a Member is purely a matter of editorial discretion.The Times wrote in its leading article:
It is purely a matter of editorial discretion. Of course, there are times when publication would clearly be against the national interest and that would be borne in mind.
It was certainly not borne in mind in this case.
In my submission to the House, it would be a most dangerous doctrine that newspapers could exercise whatever pressure they liked to try to persuade a Member of this House to disclose information improperly to them and that that should be entirely a matter for the discretion of the newspapers. I utterly deplore any such suggestion. I hope that when the House eventually debates the Report of that Select Committee it will reject that suggestion entirely.
I wish that this Committee could have recommended a more severe punishment than the lack of punishment which is recommended for the newspaper. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) said, it is a pity that we cannot fine, because this would be an entirely appropriate case, in my view, in which to fine the newspaper. But as we cannot do that, no doubt we have to take the matter as it lies. I hope that nobody will think that because we are doing nothing more than take no action against the newspaper, we therefore feel that its offence is an offence of no particular significance. In my view it is an offence of very great significance, and I hope that the House will so treat it.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Edward Heath: In his opening remarks the hon. Member for


Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said that the Second Report from the Committee of Privileges which we are debating raises important issues of principle. In that I entirely agree with him. I therefore regard it as natural as well as right that the House should have a debate upon the Report. It is right that it should consider matters of principle as well as issues so important for any one of our colleagues.
The House is, of course, absolutely entitled to take whatever view it likes of the Report of its own Select Committee of Privileges. I do not think that any of my colleagues on the Committee would challenge the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale in that for one moment. Indeed, I put questions to the Clerk of the House, which hon. Members will find on page 45—questions 484–485— as to whether not only the view taken of the Report but also a decision on action did not lie absolutely and entirely in the power of the House. He confirmed that that was so.
The Committee of Privileges is not bound by any precedent which may have occurred in the past. The Clerk of the House is kind enough to provide us with precedents of similar cases and we can take them into account and use them as guidance, but it is very evident to every Member of the Committee that no case which comes before it is exactly similar to another case and therefore there can be no exact precedent. But it is a useful guidance.
As this is a matter for the House, we are speaking as individual Members, fully entitled to our own views and to take our own decisions. I speak, therefore, as an individual Member of the House, though perhaps with particular responsibility as one of the more senior, though not very senior, and as a member of the Committee of Privileges.
The Leader of the House put the position very clearly and very charitably— quite rightly—in his opening remarks, and I fully agree with what he said. There are some aspects of this unhappy case —because any matter which affects one of our colleagues so deeply is bound to be sad—of which we can be appreciative. First, the facts are clear. No one in the debate has challenged them. They were given to the Committee with absolute

frankness at the earliest possible moment by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). For that the whole Committee was intensely grateful. Secondly the fact about the state of privilege is clear. That has not been challenged. It was stated by the Clerk of the House. As I see the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale stirring in his seat, I would point out that the state of the existing position of privilege is agreed by everyone. It is true that recommendations have been made for changes, though the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) emphasised the need to maintain the principle in this case. But the House has not yet reached a conclusion on any changes. The existing state of privilege is therefore known to all Members. It was freely and voluntarily accepted by the hon. Member for West Lothian. He never challenged it in any way— and we should be fair to him in that respect, too.
For me, the question at issue is also clear. The facts are clear, the state of privilege at present is clear and, therefore, the issue is clear. Was the hon. Gentleman himself under an obligation, freely accepted, to adhere to the present state of privilege of the House? My conclusion is that he was. Again, he did not challenge this fact. He accepted it absolutely before the Committee. The remaining question is this: if these are the facts, and they are clear and unchallenged, what action should the House take on them? It is this very difficult and, in some ways, grievous decision which the House must take.
I was worried, first, by some aspects of the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who is himself Chairman of one of the most important Committees of this House. I was also worried by some aspects of the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. It seemed to me that it was one of the most wrong-headed and, therefore, ineffective speeches which the hon. Gentleman has ever made, certainly that I have heard him make. He raised a number of issues which are not really relevant to the issue before us, however important they may be.
I agree that some of them are very important indeed and need the consideration of the House, but they do not concern this issue. The hon. Gentleman


raised the question of making information available to the public, and I find myself in agreement with a great deal of what he said about this and with his general attitude to the question. Personally, I am in favour of as open a society as we can have in this democracy, and there are some aspects of it which give me cause for anxiety.
This, however, is not the matter in dispute. The Committee was in the process of deciding what information should be made available. The decision rests in the hands of the Select Committee on Science and Technology and not with a Government official who had given confidential information. Nor does it rest with a Minister. It lies in the hands of the Committee itself and that Committee was about to take a decision about what should be published. The hon. Member for West Lothian was himself a member of the Committee and was, therefore, in a very powerful position to influence what that Committeee did. Thus, the question of making information available is not at issue here.

Mr. Michael Foot: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the question of making information available to the public does arise as to whether or not theObserver should have printed the story?

Mr. Heath: I am coming to that. I will be dealing with another of the hon. Gentleman's fallacies.
From the point of view of making information available, I believe that this case—in saying this I agree with the view expressed by other hon. Members— will make Ministers and officials more doubtful about giving what they consider to be confidential information to Members of this House. I greatly regret this because, far from this case helping the hon. Gentleman's cause, I believe that it will only damage it.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to go further and say, "Even so, the Committee will only get the information volunteered to it. We must have more than that", then he must persuade the House to give itself powers to force the Government to give information which they do not wish to give and which they believe should not, in the national interest, be made available to anybody outside the Government. I do not believe that

the House would be prepared to take that action or that any honourable Government could accept such an order from the House. We therefore come back to the position in which we rely on information being given to Select Committees by the Government and on the general power and technique of a Select Committee to obtain that information.
The other aspect of this is that these Comittees are bound to rely on privilege to give confidence to Ministers and officials. If they are not to rely on privilege, then they must take other steps—if we want the information—which I believe would be more objectionable to the House. It seems that they would have to say to Ministers or officials, "Every member of the committee has been positively vetted." It would be unacceptable to the House if that procedure were used. We would be divided into "pos" and "non-pos" hon. Members, and that would be most disagreeable. One can hardly contemplate such a situation arising.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What does it mean?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman knows what it means.
If an hon. Member takes a different view and says that he should not be bound by privilege in a Select Committee, then the only honourable course open to him is to tell his colleagues that he does not accept the position, and he should leave the Committee. Alternatively, he must convince his colleagues—which the hon. Member for West Lothian failed to do at the meeting held before this particular session at Porton—that nothing should be held in private.
He had an opportunity of doing that and, in fairness to the Select Committee, it has held most of its meetings in public and the Press and public have been free to hear everything said. But the hon. Gentleman failed to convince his colleagues of that and, therefore, he should either have adhered to the principle of privilege or withdrawn, knowing that he could not accept it.

Dr. David Kerr: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that throughout the debate today there has been a grievous and misleading confusion about the precise


meaning of the word "privilege"? All hon. Members, including the right hon. Gentleman, have been using the word to mean, on the one hand, a privilege which protects hon. Members of this House and, on the other, a privilege which it is not—one which we bestow, willingly or unwillingly, on witnesses who appear before committees. These are two quite different forms of privilege.

Mr. Heath: If the hon. Gentleman will read the submission of the Clerk to the House he will see these different aspects of privilege dealt with. There is no doubt, according to the rule of the House of 1837, that this was both a breach of privilege and a contempt of the House by the hon. Gentleman concerned. I do not think that that would be challenged by anyone who has read the Clerk's evidence.
The other matter running through this debate is the question of secrecy. The hon. Member for Fife, West referred to sinister activity at Porton. I cannot help but feel that some hon. Members, consciously or unconsciously, are allowing their view of the activity at Porton, which may or may not be justified, to influence their approach to the question of the premature revelation of the information in the Select Committee's evidence. I hope that hon. Members will seek to separate these two things and will not allow their view of Porton and what may or may not go on there to affect their judgment of the action which was taken.

Dr. Ernest A. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the article published in theObserver could have been published in almost identical form if the newspaper reporters had awaited the normal report emanating from the Committee?

Mr. Heath: That point is precisely the one made by the Leader of the House and by so many hon. Members who have spoken today. It was in the hands of the Select Committee, which was deciding what to publish. The hon. Gentleman concerned breached that confidence.
This theme of secrecy has been running through the whole debate. For me, secrecy and security were not the matter with which the Privileges Committee was dealing. Questions of military or civil

security can be dealt with by other means. There is legislation—

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Before the right hon. Gentleman continues—

Mr. Heath: I have already given way a number of times.

Mr. Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman is reported to have asked, as a member of the Committee of Privileges, an important question on page 39 of the Second Report from the Committee of Privileges. Questioning Vice-Admiral Sir Norman Denning, the right hon. Gentleman asked:
You have now read the article in theObserver. If the journalist had submitted it to you before it was published, is there anything in it which you could have asked him to exclude because of D notices?
That was question No. 435. The answer given was, "No". I approve of the right hon. Gentleman's questioning. He asked some essential questions— [Interruption.] I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I trust that hon. Members will allow me to finish my intervention. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that that question was relevant, is not the background issue of security also relevant to the whole case?

Mr. Heath: With respect, that is not so. I asked that question to show that nothing published in theObserver could have been kept out by D notices. That does not alter the position. It is clear, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) said, that the whole of the evidence was handed over to theObserver, and therefore—I will not go so far as one might; it is not for me to judge—information which the Ministry of Defence was asking to be sidelined was given to theObserver. Amongst other criticisms which some might make of the newspapermen would be that they were given information which was a real scoop but failed to notice it, let alone publish it. But that, perhaps, is fortunate. There are other means of dealing with secrecy —the Official Secrets Act, and so on. It is not a matter for the Committee of Privileges, and those who are bringing this into issue are, I think, wrong.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale tried to say that this was the great issue of the relations between this House and Fleet


Street. Again, I believe that this is wrong-headed. I believe with my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) that the obligations on the Press and on a Member of this House, especially a member of a Select Committee, are of completely different kinds. This is why I agreed with the recommendation of the Committee of Privileges that the hon. Member for West Lothian and those concerned with the newspaper should be treated differently.
I say to the House that I was not happy about the way in which Mr. Astor behaved. I would be more doubtful about being critical of Mr. Marks, but as both of them saw the cover of that document of State, and saw it quite clearly, I should have thought that if there were any real relationship between the Press and an hon. Member, they would have returned to the hon. Member for West Lothian and said, "We see this statement on the front. Are you absolutely certain that we are in a position to publish it?" I should have thought that that would have been done by a great newspaper in consideration of the relationship with a member of this House, and I hope that it will be done in future.
But it is not a question, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale alleged, that the House of Commons is always right and Fleet Street is always wrong. There is no question of that whatever. The question is: should the hon. Member have adhered to the state of privilege which he fully accepted?

Mr. Woodburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the great damages done to the relationship with the Press relates to the fact that every Lobby correspondent gets secrets here every day, but observes the rules and does not publish what he is not supposed to, but in this case Mr. Astor knew quite well that he ought not to publish, but persisted in doing so.

Mr. Heath: We must be careful here, because neither Mr. Astor nor Mr. Marks were acting under Lobby terms as we know them to mean. We must, therefore, make clear the distinction in different circumstances.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I intervene only to correct an error of fact which the right hon. Gentleman made, I am sure unwittingly. I

think that Mr. Astor denied that he had ever seen the actual minutes of the evidence.

Mr. Heath: I entirely accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's correction on that point.
My last point concerns the question of bringing to public notice things which the public ought to know. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale painted a picture of his colleague the hon. Member for West Lothian as a knight errant in shining armour who was saying, "Here is something to which I object going on at Porton. I am determined to expose it to the public gaze"—a man who was so dishonourable as to take advantage of membership of one of the Select Committees of this House knowing the obligations on which it rested, who was present at the conversation at which they discussed whether or not it should be in public or in private and decided that it should be private and in which the Chairman said they would give the utmost consideration to sidelines, and then went out and deliberately gave this information to the representatives of a great newspaper in order to further his cause.
I must say that nothing could be further from the truth. None of these things is correct. The hon. Member for West Lothian made this perfectly plain in his own evidence where, in his answer to Question 119, he said:
If what I have done had been premeditated, heavens, I would not do the same thing again.
That made a considerable impression on me as a member of the Select Committee of Privileges. He was obviously not doing this as a deliberate dishonourable act as part of some crusade He did it for a number of reasons which he described to us afterwards. Perhaps some of us thought that he was rather muddle-headed, he himself said that he was rather tired, that he was in the habit of discussing those questions with journalists, and that that was how the difficulty arose. This was not the knight errant in shining armour deliberately breaking—

Mr. Michael Foot: I was not saying that—that would contradict the evidence given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. What I was saying, and this is absolutely confirmed in answer to Question 143, was that the House would


understand that it is his passion as a campaigner that has landed him in this situation. Anyone reading that answer will see that. A very graceful tribute was paid to the candour with which my hon. Friend gave evidence, and hon. Members should take account of what he said in that answer as to why he was fascinated and passionately interested in the subject.

Mr. Heath: I take that fully into account, but the hon. Gentleman's passion was not such as to lead him into a position of doing what he did as part of a deliberate crusade to publish information that he had no other way of doing except by breaching the privileges of this House.
Having considered all the facts of the case, I believe that they are plain. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was under an obligation to adhere to what he knew full well to be the present state of privilege in this House. I believe that it is necessary to maintain that state in order that Select Committees and, in particular, the new Select Committees—the specialist committees—can carry on their work for the benefit of the House and of the public.
The remaining question is what action the House should take. This is the hardest thing that the House has to decide. I came to the conclusion that to do what the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) asked us to do, and say that the House would do nothing would undermine the position of Select Committees of this House. I therefore, sadly and with great regret, came to what I believe to be the right conclusion, which is that the House should approve a Resolution asking that the hon. Member should be reprimanded.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has very fairly put the point of view of the politician obsessed with the Committees of the House, but what he has not done is to deal with the issue of whether or not this was a matter of public importance which justifies publication in theObserver. I believe that Mr. Astor, for whom I hold no brief— the only occasion on which I have seen him was when I debated with him in the

Oxford Union—acted reasonably and justifiably in publishing this story—

Mr. Woodburn: May I put a point to the hon. Member?

Mr. Hughes: Not yet, not yet—wait a minute.
That point of view is held by a very reputable editor whose views are treated with great respect in this House—the editor ofThe Guardian. I cannot lightly brush aside the view, put very logically and forcibly and moderately in the leading article ofThe Guardian today, that there is too much secrecy in these matters and that in attempting to lift the veil of secretary Mr. Astor was justified in printing this story. What the editor ofThe Guardian has pointed out is that if the Select Committee on Science and Technology is to do its work properly it must have members who are prepared to press and probe and to get behind the veil of secrecy, and that if editors are to be afraid of the Committee of Privileges or of censure by the House, the Select Committee on Science and Technology will not be able to operate as the House suggests.

Mr. Woodburn: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the point about Mr. Astor was that he said he understood quite well that he was taking a calculated risk in publishing this, but he practically said he was doing this on the basis that he could rely on putting the blame on my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)? I think that is one of the meanest things I have ever seen in an editor.

Mr. Hughes: That is a very free translation of what Mr. Astor said.

Mr. Woodburn: I was there.

Mr. Hughes: It is not borne out by the OFFICIAL REPORT. I can imagine circumstances in which a busy editor had to deal with this situation. The first question was security. We find in a study of the evidence that Mr. Astor took great care to get in touch with Admiral Denning to find out if there were any security matters involved. It is quite clear from the definite evidence of Admiral Denning that there were no security measures involved at all and there was no danger, or potential danger,


to the people of this country in the stories that theObserver printed.
Then the editor had to find whether the story was on the right side of the law. We are told in the evidence that he consulted his lawyers—very experienced lawyers in libel and all these matters—and the lawyers passed the story. That being so, I do not see why Mr. Astor should be branded as a public enemy.
What were the motives of theObserver in printing this story? There is no doubt at all that theObserver has taken part in a crusade for getting a new public attitude towards biological warfare. There is behind this, I believe, a growing volume of public opinion that the facts about biological warfare should be well known and that a different attitude should be taken by the Government. I believe that in this way Mr. Astor was voicing what a very considerable percentage of readers advocated and what people know.
Is there not a change even in the attitude of the Government on this question? Three weeks ago the Prime Minister was asked a Question about Porton. I believe it was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I asked a simple supplementary question—should not Porton be handed over to the Ministry of Health? The Prime Minister replied that it should not be handed over to the Ministry of Health but should remain under the Ministry of Defence.
That was a definite Answer by the Prime Minister three weeks ago, but what was the Answer given by the Prime Minister last Thursday in reply to Questions on this issue? He did not then say that Porton should not be handed over to the Ministry of Health. What he said then was that the whole question is under review, and he repeated that it is under review. That is a change of attitude. I believe that change of attitude will be welcomed by a great many people in this country.
I believe it is due to the public interest that has been aroused as a result of this controversy. I hope it will continue and I hope that the pressure will steadily grow so that the Prime Minister can come to the House and say, "Yes, to allay all fears that this place is being

used as a centre for germ warfare, it will be handed over to the Ministry of Health." I made that suggestion many years ago when the Ministry of Defence was established. Hon. Members who were present will know that in that Committee—to which I was appointed, I think, accidentally—I moved that Porton should be transferred to the Ministry of Health.
If that had been done everyone would know that it was purely for defending the civilian population against disease and we would not have had these unfortunate repercussions. I have been to Porton. I was a John the Baptist who went to Porton long before the Select Committee went. I was interested when the Committee said that it was going to Porton. I would not have been on the Select Committee because the suggestion was made that its members would be positively vetted. I went to Porton as a member of the Scientific Committee of this House. I had a good look at the place and came away as unenlightened as I was before I went there.
I remember a Conservative friend of mine saying as we came home on the train, "They were decent chaps weren't they? They gave us a good lunch. Of course you didn't expect them to show us anything connected with defence." I am interested in Porton because I believe that there is going on in Porton scientific experimentation for the purpose of carrying on germ warfare and for the purpose of co-operating with the United States of America in research work the only objective of which is to carry on germ warfare.
This is a matter of enormous interest, not only to the people of this country but to the whole of humanity. It is not interested in the technicalities of the Committee and privilege. I believe that as a result of these discussions, perhaps accidentally—I do not think he contemplated this—my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian has rendered a public service, for which I would congratulate him. I do not associate myself with the breaches of the technicalities of this Committee. If my hon. Friend had come to me I would have given him advice on the matter.
Accidentally as it were, as a result of a discussion of this matter, tomorrow


people will be asking, "What is this Porton? Is it a place where scientists are engaged as prostitutes?" When I say "prostitutes" I do not mean in the sexual meaning of the word; I mean in the scientific aspect of the word. If men of science or men of education, men who have been trained in biology and all the necessary scientific preparation for this work, are devoting any part of their energy to disseminating germs throughout the world, then they are prostituting their learning and their scientific achievements. I do not want our scientists to be prostitutes in that sense.
In the House of Commons there is a new interest in biological warfare. A very interesting brief has been prepared and it is in the Library. I read in that brief something I had not known before. I did not know that some mysterious happenings were going on in an island on the West of Scotland which had been clamped down upon for security reasons. In it, I discovered that anthrax is a disease of such infrequent occurrence today that it has a potential military value. In addition, it is extremely stable. But there is an island—Gruinard Island—off the Scottish coast which was deliberately infected with anthrax during the war. and it is expected—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate is ranging fairly widely, but not to the island off the Scottish coast.

Mr. Hughes: I merely wish to finish the sentence Mr. Speaker—it is expected to remain dangerous for another century. Therefore, the people should be intensely interested in what is happening in the research station at Porton. I do not believe that I would be justified in voting for censure against the hon. Member for West Lothian.
Of course, the hon. Member repudiates me. He has repeatedly made speeches in which he has said that he agrees with Polaris. I do not understand the logic of that. He is, however, a good, young, energetic Member of Parliament with courage. He is obviously not out for a job. He is never likely to become Prime Minister. He is never likely to become a member of the Cabinet. This incident will be against him all his life.
Here is a man who, in his impetuosity, did something to break the traditions and

privileges of this House. Therefore, I do not feel that I am justified in voting for the view that he should be rebuked in any way. Other hon. Members can vote for the Motion if they wish. I will not. Let them say to themselves about the matter of revealing confidences,
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone".

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In so far as this debate deals with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) I should have preferred that the House had listened to the statement of its Leader and also, perhaps, to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and then that we could have disposed of the matter with dispatch. I am sorry that we have had a wide-ranging debate and sorry, too, that I feel compelled to intervene in it.
I have read the Report. We have heard the hon. Member for West Lothian. We have heard the two Front Bench speeches and I am convinced that the recommendations of the Select Committee in respect of the hon. Member are right. Unfortunately, two other citizens, who are not Members of the House, are also referred to in the Report, namely, the two journalists. It is because the House is asked this evening not simply to reprimand the hon. Member, but also to take note of that part of the Report which deals with the two journalists, that I venture briefly to speak.
I refer first to Mr. Marks. After reading the evidence and in the light of some experience myself—14 years in journalism —I have no doubt that Mr. Marks was doing his job as well as he knew how. Far from wanting to reprimand him, I am bound to recognise that in this case he did his job well. Indeed, in those magazines for which I have had the privilege of being editor, I would have given him a rise. He did his job as a reporter extremely well.
There is, however, the second journalist —the editor, Mr. Astor. I have been an editor ofTime and managing editor for a number of years ofNewsweek International. During those years, I have had brought to me many cases of leaks and confidences from politicians in this country, and in the United States, where, with the greatest respect to our own country, there are far more secrets to


leak and, indeed, the Americans are much better at leaking.
The questions which I have to ask myself about the conduct of the editor were, first: did he know when he published that this was a matter covered by the privilege of the House? I have read his evidence. I find it difficult to reach a firm conclusion as to whether he knew or he did not. I cannot, however, help feeling—and I say this as a former editor —that Mr. Astor may have been rather pleased that it was a confidential Report and that it was a matter of privilege, because that was what made his scoop all the more dear to him. This may be precisely the reason why, as a journalist, he gave it a big splash. That at least is my suspicion about the answer to the first question of whether Mr. Astor knew that it was a matter of privilege.
Secondly, if he knew or if he suspected that it was a matter of privilege, ought he then to have published in the fashion that he did? This is a matter not simply of editorial discretion. It is a matter of public honour, because the relationships between Press and politicians are of the most intimate and continuing character. They are founded, in the end, if they are to work, on trust, which must be mutual. I suggest that if Mr. Astor knew that it was privileged and still, in that knowledge, he went ahead and published, he was guilty of breaking that implicit trust which should exist between responsible editors and Members of Parliament.
Every day in this country, in the United States and, indeed, in all lands where the Press is free, editors are provided with confidential information and decide not to publish it. They decide not to publish it because of the larger public interest and because they want to maintain the tissue of trust which exists between sources and journalists.
I do not wish to give examples. I merely say in passing that I have had brought to me information pertaining to the actions of certain British officers in the United States at a time when we were trying to persuade the American Government to change the McMahon Act, and I suppressed it in the national interest. I have also had examples of cases where the battle order of an allied Government has been brought to me— in the hope of money—and as an editor I suppressed it.
I am sure that the House knows that honourable editors do that every day. That is how they maintain trust. That is why Members of Parliament can trust them. If we were to assure that every time an editor is provided with information he feels entitled to splash it all over the place—that if only he telephones Admiral Denning first all will be well and he can then cast his discretion to the winds, we should know that this was not a responsible editor.
Therefore, my view is that, on the first point concerning the hon. Member for West Lothian, the House is right to accept the decision of the Committee of Privileges. I would be inclined to accept it in any event because of the eminence and the wisdom of its members, who are much more experienced than I in this House.
On the second point I feel that Mr. Marks is not entitled to be reprimanded. On the third point, I feel that Mr. Astor was foolish in the extreme and that he broke the tissue of trust. I would have liked the Committee to comment somewhat more harshly on Mr. Astor's actions. I doubt that it would have been wise to do as one hon. Member opposite suggested, that is, propose to call him to the Bar of the House and reprimand him. We all know how good publicity is for circulation, and I do not think that it would in the end have achieved much if the Committee of Privileges had done that. I therefore do not ask for that. But—I say this as a former journalist—I should have liked the Committee to be a little more harsh in its judgment of Mr. Astor's actions as an editor.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: One of the best things about the House of Commons is that we meet here people whom we have not known before and we develop friendships which in other circumstances would never develop. I speak in this debate as a personal friend of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I did not know my hon. Friend before I came to the House, save something by name and reputation and the fact that he had two peacocks on his lawn. He was not the sort of man with whom I would normally mix, in the sense that he did not work in the Liverpool docks and I


did. Obviously, ours were not the sort of circles in which we should come together save in the circumstances and work of the House of Commons.
All right hon. and hon. Members who have said that my hon. Friend is a Member of great honesty and integrity speak only the truth. We all know that he is a great campaigner, that when he gets his teeth into a subject we have to look out. Perhaps that is why I am one of his friends, because I would rather have him on my side than against me. On a few occasions when I have seen matters raised by him, I have thought, "That is the end of that", because I know of his persistence and determination to deal with anything he has in his grasp at any given time.
With due respect to the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I feel that a number of extraneous matters have been introduced, matters which do not touch the real issues here. If I honestly believed that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian had wilfully and deliberately decided, knowing that it was a breach of the privilege of the House, to give this information to the Press, I should be the first to condemn him. But my submission is that the evidence before us in the Report of the Committee of Privileges leads to a contrary conclusion. I am, therefore, somewhat surprised at the conclusion and decisions taken, in their infinite wisdom, by the members of the Committee.
For example, we are told that the public meetings of the Select Committee were held upstairs, with the Press present, but, at the same time, after the public meetings had been held, the documents issued to members of the Committee still had "Private and Confidential" on them and the necessary statement at the bottom. That was the fact, although every newspaper man who attended the meeting could have given the information to the world. This is made clear in the Report, and I cannot imagine that any hon. Member will challenge that that is what happened.
What happened even at the private meetings? It would appear from what some hon. Members have said that everything was clear about the specific private meeting which is in issue, but is the Report clear about that? First there

was a meeting held in a small room before the official meeting took place. In his evidence to the Committee of Privileges, my hon. Friend said about that:
My recollection of the discussion is that Sir Harry Legge-Bourke suggested that he wanted this to be an entirely secret session. The Chairman, as far as I recollect, was noncommittal. Dr. Ernest Davies and I came down very strongly against it being in any way different from our normal sessions, and the request by Sir Harry Legge-Bourke that it should be a secret session was in fact rejected.
What did the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) say about it? He was asked about precisely the same matter. I cannot find the place in the evidence at the moment, so perhaps I may paraphrase what the hon. Gentleman said, knowing that he will correct me at once if I make a mistake. He said that the discussion did take place and he wanted the meeting to be secret, but there was no definite decision taken on the matter, save on the question of sidelining. That was the important point which the hon. Gentleman raised. I accept that the question of sidelining is a significant issue here.

Mr. Palmer: My hon. Friend is in error there. All the meetings held away from Westminster have, by order of the Committee, been in private. That applied to the confidential meeting of members of the Committee before we called the witnesses in, and it applied to the actual hearing itself. There was never at any time any question of such a sitting being a public sitting. It was physically impossible, anyway.

Mr. Heffer: What my hon. Friend says is true, but the issue here was the question of sidelining.
When he was questioned in the Committee about it, my hon. Friend made two points, if I remember aright. He said that if it was minor sidelining he himself took the decision without reference to the Committee, but if there were major sidelining the matter would then be referred to the Committee and the Committee would take the decision.
When my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian was asked whether there had ever been a discussion about sidelining, he said that he could not recollect the question of sidelining being discussed at any time in the Committee. So there had not been a discussion in the Committee itself about sidelining. There had been


the original discussion about how it would be operated, but it had never been referred to the Committee. That is the point I make.
As regards what happens at Porton itself, the words were "sympathetically considered". That is not the same as saying that the statements would be struck from the record. Hon. Members may say that this is a lawyer's argument; and I am not a lawyer, though I am doing my best, I must say, in relation to all this part of it. But the question of sidelining becomes of some importance in this sense. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian made the point in his evidence that he thought it rather fatuous that there should be any sidelining of answers to the questions which were put, because most of the information had appeared in scientific journals anyway, and the whole scientific world knew about it. Let us look at what the position was. I want members on the Committee to answer these points, because I carefully considered what happened and asked myself why they were not dealt with in the Report.
Like an hon. Member opposite, I believe that my hon. Friend was not a knave but more of a fool in handing over the documents. I do not think that my hon. Friend is arrogant. Perhaps I can put it this way: I think that he is a man with great certainty, but that is not the same thing as being arrogant. He is a man with deep convictions, and when he thinks he is right he says something, but that is not the same thing as arrogance. That he is not arrogant was proved in his attitude to the matter.
I was sitting near my hon. Friend when it was raised in the House and he said to me, "Good God! I raised this matter. I gave that information. I shall have to tell them immediately." That was his first reaction. A dishonourable man would have hidden what he did. How would the Committee ever have known who gave theObserver the document? If the Press had not told the Committee my hon. Friend would not have been known to have given it, if he had not said so himself. That is the action of an honourable man.
Therefore, we come to the question of punishment. I think that my hon. Friend is punished enough by the debate, the issue of the Report, and the fact that hon.

Members could say that he was not a knave but a fool and something about being more mad than bad. I should not like that said about me by hon. Members. That is punishment enough, and so is the fact that other Members have said that he suffered from ignorance, innocence and arrogance. All these things will, unfortunately, be published in the Scottish Press.
I ask hon. Members to vote against the Motion. I should have liked to vote for the Amendment, but we cannot do so. Because we feel that we should not support the Motion does not mean that we are repudiating what the Committee said, or that we are treating the Committee wrongly. I ask hon. Members to reject the recommendation, and I hope that when we go into the Lobbies we shall have a majority with us.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I want, first, to draw the attention of the House to page 43 of the Report of the Committee of Privileges, where the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked the Clerk of the House:
Is there any difference either in the layout of the proof which has "Confidential" at the top and the warning at the bottom, or in the handling of the proof according to whether the sitting of which it is a proof had admitted strangers or not?
The House might suggest to the Chairmen of Select Committees that the failure to distinguish between what is really confidential and what is called confidential but is not debases the currency of confidentiality. Surely, if a real distinction had been made in the proof which gave rise to all this trouble it would have been perfectly obvious to Mr. Astor when Mr. Marks sat in front of him that the proof in his hand was really confidential, and that publication of it would constitue a breach of privilege? Even if the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) had been negligent enough to ignore the fact that he had in his hands a manifestly confidential document, surely the editor of theObserver would not have been able to plead, as he did before the Committee, that he was not really sure whether it was a breach of privilege?
From a practical point of view it might be very useful if Chairmen of Select Committees gave attention to this point


of detail which might make it much easier for their members in future not to be trapped, if trapped the hon. Gentleman was, into the situation which has led him into such difficulties.

Mr. Palmer: That form of cover is not within the control of Chairmen of Select Committees. It is the standard form of the House, and it is kept like that even for public sittings to give two or three days in which members of the Committee can suggest their own corrections before the official record goes out. Therefore, there is a rational argument for it.

Mr. Iremonger: I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman says is very right and sensible, but I think that he will recognise that there is some sense, also, in what I say. It might be possible to classify proofs according to whether a sitting was confidential or in public. The degree of confidentiality is manifestly different as between the printer's proof of a report of one and of the other.

Sir Douglas Glover: My hon. Friend has asked that Chairmen of Select Committees should alter the format of the reports. My practical experience on a Select Committee is that I have on occasions said something that I have said is not for publication. I should be furious if that confidentiality was taken away before I could inspect the report and make certain that that had not been published. Therefore, it would be very dangerous if that cover were taken off a report.

Mr. Iremonger: Perhaps there might be a pink proof and a green proof, one to protect my hon. Friend and the other to protect people who are even more important, those who have been given a pledge of confidentiality and find it broken later, as happened in this case.
The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) came to the true heart of the debate, perhaps unintentionally, when he said that there was something sinister about Porton. I felt that he was being tempted by that feeling to condone what his hon. Friend did, and which the hon. Member for West Lothian had confessed he should not have done. There has been a confusing strain of argument throughout the

debate that suggests that because the Committee was investigating what went on at Porton, and Porton is connected with defence, and defence is connected with the possibility of war, which somehow, in an obscure way, only capitalist countries are responsible for, the action of the Committee in condemning the hon. Member for West Lothian is to be criticised and not to be taken seriously.
I detected that strain in a number of speeches, but primarily in the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, West. I felt that he was saying that for that reason the hon. Gentleman should not be reprimanded as the Committee has recommended. He took a different view about the editor of theObserver, who he felt was being let off too lightly. I do not want to comment on that, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has done that with very much greater authority.
The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) asked what purpose would be served by reprimanding the hon. Member for West Lothian. The House should consider that question the other way round. What purpose would be served by not accepting the recommendation of the Committee? What purpose would be served by refusing to reprimand the hon. Gentleman? What effect would that have on members of the public and Members of the House? What would be the precedent for the future? Does it matter? What is the purpose of privilege?
The hon. Member for Fife, West raised a fundamentally important question when he said that the general public were not concerned with the technicalities of Parliamentary privilege. But privilege is to protect Parliament so as to enable it to do its duty to the public. It is not privilege to protect a self-indulgent House, and if the public are not concerned about the technicalities of privilege it is the duty of the House to be concerned about them, because what we are protecting is the public interest, which requires that Parliament should not be impeded in carrying out its duty.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) spoke of privilege as though it were some sort of antiquarian and eccentric interest of the Committee of Privileges. He suggested that the


House should be concerned with wider matters than the mere technicalities of privilege. But the reality could not be more clearly expressed than in the words of the Clerk on page 51 of the Report in his memorandum of evidence:
When a Select Committee is sitting in private, its members must be allowed to pursue their deliberations without outside interference. For this reason it has long been regarded as a contempt of the House if outside persons take the initiative and publish the results of the Committee's work before the Committee has made up its mind on what recommendations it is going to make.
On page 39, in answer to a question, the Clerk of the House said:
the privileges of the House are known and established, and one of them is freedom of speech. Now, if Members of a Select Committee feel they cannot speak freely for fear that someone will intrude upon their discussions, then this constitutes in the person who commits the offence a breach of known privilege of the House.
If I may trouble the house with another quotation—I think it important to get this clear—my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said:
Had I thought for one moment that the answers given to these questions were going to be …leaked to the Press, I certainly would not have asked those questions in that manner.
My hon. Friend was doing his duty, as a Member of the House, in the interests of the public. He was enabled to do it because of the confidence that he put in the effectiveness of Parliamentary privilege. If the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale thinks that it does not matter, what he is saying is that Parliament does not matter and that its duty is trivial and negligible.
But this is even more important today than it has ever been, as the Committee said in paragraph 8 of its Report. It said that the greater use being now made of Select Committees requires the House's privileges to be protected even more assiduously than before if possible. It seems to me, therefore, that this is particularly important in a modern and not an antiquarian sense. If the House says, as it may well do, that it is a painful duty that the House has to perform in reprimanding the hon. Member for West Lothian, I think it should regard the alternative as being even more painful, which is to denigrate the importance of the House's duty to the public.
I should have thought that the recommendation of the Committee to reprimand the hon. Member was a compassionate and lenient one, because I should have thought that on the face of it a breach of privilege of this nature if it were dishonourable, if it were done with evil intent, would have been the kind of breach of privilege which would merit expusion from the House.
We all know from the evidence, and it is perfectly obvious from what we know of the hon. Member—no hon. Member could have anything against him personally—that he is an outstandingly decent, sincere and honourable man, and, therefore, it would obviously be monstrous to visit upon him the full penalty of expusion. But it seems to me that to impose the penalty of reprimand is the least that the House can do to register the seriousness and solemnity of its duties and the fact that it accepts its privileges as a necessary part of maintaining its integrity and effectiveness.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Peart.

Mr. Peart: rose—

Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have never yet submitted to you a point concerning participation in debate, but as the fate of one of our colleagues is concerned I submit that it would be outrageous if we were not allowed to be heard before the final decision is taken if we wish to do so.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that on an issue of this sort, dealing with one of our colleagues, there is one of the usual sort of cases here of agreement between the usual channels.

Mr. Peart: Not at all.

Mr. Barnett: It may or may not be the case. If it is not the case—

Mr. William Whitelaw: It is not true.

Mr. Barnett: If it is not true, I accept what the right hon Gentleman says with pleasure. But if it is not the case, why is my right hon. Friend rising when


there are still a number of hon. Members who wish to speak on the issue, which seriously affects a colleague?

Mr. Speaker: It is not unknown for a member of the Front Bench to rise, and if a Member of the Front Bench rises, Mr. Speaker must call him. Mr. Peart.

Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to assume that because my right hon. Friend has now risen, it portends the conclusion of the debate?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is an old Parliamentarian and knows that he can assume nothing. Mr. Peart.

Mr. Peart: rose—

Mr. Brooks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to put to you a point for my guidance. I understand that the Motion before the House uses the term "gross contempt". That term does not appear in the Report of the Commmittee of Privileges, where the term used is "severe contempt". I ask on what basis the Leader of the House, speaking as Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, has chosen to use a form of words which was not the considered judgment of the Committee.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a point with which the Leader of the House may deal if he likes. Mr. Peart.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I thought that I should intervene at this stage and ask my hon. Friends to give serious consideration to this matter. I thought the time had come when I ought to say briefly—because I presented the Motion—that hon. Members should consider the main issue.
We have had some very good speeches. I know that some hon. Members may still wish to speak—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but in the interests of my hon. Friend who is involved in this, I hope that hon. Members will not make our debate too tedious and think that we should come to a decision. I am merely suggesting this with my usual brevity and, I hope, precision, and I hope that I am making my point understood.
I could reply to many of the points that have been raised in the debate, but

I would merely say that I feel that the standard of the speeches, as always in a privilege debate on a matter affecting the conduct of the House, has reached a very high quality. All hon. Members who have made their contributions have done so without any party consideration, and they have done so sincerely.
I merely say to my hon. Friends the Members for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that the issue is not chemical or biological warfare. The issue that we are discussing is not the future of Porton. These are matters which the Government must decide and the House must finally approve.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: rose—

Mr. Peart: Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear with me. I was patient when I listened to his speech.
We all have a dislike of certain preparations for war activities which may be construed wrongly. I know that some hon. Members have sincere pacifist views, and I respect them, but such hon. Members must remember that many of us who have other views also want world disarmament and peace. But this is not the issue. The issue is not the existence of Porton. The issue today is the very existence of our experiments in relation to Select Committees. That is the great issue.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the issue have been possible without Porton? Is not that the issue?

Mr. Peart: Of course not. My hon. Friend must surely realise that the very existence of confidentiality in relation to our Select Committees and other Committees set up by the House is part of the basis of our existence. The whole concept of our democratic procedures is based fundamentally on trust between individual hon. Members. That is the issue now.

Mr. John Lee: I know that my right hon. Friend is trying to be helpful, but surely it is an exaggeration to say that this issue has nothing to do with Porton. Surely we have to consider, among other matters, the motivation of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) before deciding what punishment should be administered to him.

Mr. Peart: Suppose that another Select Committee had been involved. As Minister of Agriculture, I appeared before the Select Committee on Agriculture. This matter might have arisen from the deliberations of that Select Committee. I gave confidential information to my colleagues on that Committee. It is on the basis of confidence that a Minister reveals such information to a Select Committee. I spoke, also, to an open sitting of the Committee and then, of course, there was no question of confidentiality. But, obviously, there are times when confidential information should be given to a Select Committee in the pursuit of its duties and investigations.
That is the issue here. It is not whether hon. Members are to be engaged in activities against Porton as such, or are to change policy. Hon. Members have opportunities in the House to challenge Government policy, to speak in debates and question Ministers about that policy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been quoted today on the Porton issue.
What I am worried about, as Leader of the House, is that action of the kind involved here could hurt and harm an experiment in which many hon. Members believe. I know that there are varying views about these Select Committees and it may be that, after we have had the experiment, we may decide not to continue them. But it so happens that, as Minister of a Department, I appeared before one of these Committees. Indeed, I am also on record as believing, before I became a Minister, that Select Committees of this kind were essential to our procedure in modern circumstances. I believe that the development of a technical and technological society makes them inevitable so that an informed check can be kept on the Executive and on Ministers and to enable hon. Members to have more information. I have always welcomed this experiment.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: Since my right hon. Friend agrees so strongly that we should have this kind of Specialist Committee, does not he agree that they should have facilities for keeping information, offices and the accompanying staff?

Mr. Peart: That is going far beyond the issue we are considering. If information is given by a Minister or another witness, and Members have agreed that

it shall be kept within the closed group of the Select Committee until it is prepared to publish its report, obviously it is wrong for an individual member of the Committee to break that confidentiality. That is the issue. I want this experiment to succeed. Without going into the minutiae involved in the law of privilege, I repeat that confidentiality is the fundamental issue.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I think that my right hon. Friend will accept that no one is more concerned than I that these Committees should succeed and I accept that harm has been done. But surely the real issue here is not the future of these Committees, but whether or not enough punishment has been administered to an individual. The issue now, having established the Select Committees, is whether we should waive the matter and say that punishment has been administered and that we need go no further. That is the issue, not the question whether there should be Specialist Committees.

Mr. Peart: I was not replying to that point, but to some of the arguments used by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire and others, who got involved in a rather general argument. There is no question that the Committee of Privileges looked into this matter carefully and impartially and I believe that we came to the right conclusion. Some hon. Members may believe that we have been too kind and lenient in the action we propose. Indeed, this has been said. But, in the circumstances, I must advise my colleagues on both sides of the House to accept the Motion. I hope that we can come to an early decision in the interests of all.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I am surprised that my right hon. Friend should have said that we should come to a speedy conclusion in dealing with so serious a matter to a colleague. I, too, would like to reach a conclusion, but this is a serious matter for my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) with great respect, as I always do, particularly on these issues, but I think that he got it wrong on this occasion. He said that we would


be condoning an unworthiness if we condoned this particular unworthiness.

Mr. C. Pannell: It was a quotation—to condone an unworthiness is an unworthiness in itself.

Mr. Barnett: I assume that, in quoting it, my right hon. Friend was agreeing with it.
But that is not the point at issue. No one, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), has made the case that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian has not done something very wrong. The question before us is what should be the punishment, and surely that is the only question. Many irrelevancies have been brought into the debate, even by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), with whom I agree so frequently, when he talked about whether or not the information was secret.
I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian has committed a breach of privilege. I do not deny that. I do not think that anyone who has read the Report of the Committee of Privileges can deny that there was a breach of privilege. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West implied that we would be discrediting the Committee of Privileges by disagreeing with it. But it would be a very serious matter if we were simply to say that, because a group of senior Members of the House—whom I respect—have come to a certain conclusion after serious deliberation, we must accept that conclusion willy-nilly. I hope that the House will never get to that position.
I want to speak about the part of the Report of the Committee of Privileges relating to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. I speak as a personal friend of his and in that sense I am willingly biased. But, being biased, I also believe that he is a first-class Member and I do not accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian was arrogant, amongst other things, although I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, in answer to questions, said that perhaps he was being arrogant. But

it was not in the sense of the word "arrogant" as we know it. Anyone who knows my hon. Friend also knows that "arrogant" is not a description one could use of him.
Whether one agrees with my hon. Friend or not—and I agree with him on most issues on which he has campaigned in the House, which include Aldabra, the Anglo-French variable geometric aircraft and Porton—no one will deny that, in his probing insistence, he has made a valuable contribution as a Member of the House. It is clear from the Report of the Committee of Privileges that he is patently honest and that there is nothing evil in what he has done. This case stems from the earnestness of his efforts in all he does and it is summed up on page 16 of the Report. In Question 143 my hon. Friend was asked by the Attorney-General:
Why did you do it?
He replied:
I think I had better say that by nature perhaps I am a campaigner …".
That is the crux of it. We all know that my hon. Friend is a campaigner, and a very good one, and it would be a sad day for the House if we ever did anything to prevent my hon. Friend from continuing his campaigning. However, he has himself admitted, and I would not wish to deny it, that he has been very foolish. He confessed this in answer to Question 119, and in answer to Question 177 he agreed that he was gravely at fault. While we frequently take matters of privilege far too seriously and are often too sensitive to questions of privilege—

Mr. E. Shinwell: My hon. Friend has just said that his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) admitted that he was gravely at fault. Does my hon. Friend agree with his hon. Friend?

Mr. Barnett: Of course I agree. I thought that I had made it reasonably clear that I thought that he was at fault and foolish. Anybody reading the Report must agree that he committed a breach of privilege. I said that it was a matter of what should be the punishment and that when deciding what should be the punishment it was right to recognise with what sort of hon. Member we were dealing. [Interruption.] If the hon.


Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), who has not been here for the debate, does not want to hear what I am saying, let him go back to wherever he has been.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for an hon. Member to speak against a background of noise.

Mr. Barnett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Too often we are too sensitive about privilege. We were absolutely right to drop the charges against the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing). However, I recognise that this is a serious breach of privilege. I confess that I am biased and I would not presume to advise the House how to act in this instance. I speak only for myself, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition spoke for himself. I believe that there are many mitigating circumstances. It is worth looking at the answer to question 132 about the format when my hon. Friend answered:
Although I am at fault, I thought this was a pretty meaningless format.
He was referring to the cover of the document. All of us who have been members of Select Committees recognise this cover and its format and probably all of us, including myself, have committed breaches of privilege with documents with this cover. For example, I have certainly put a document with this cover in a wastepaper basket in the House where an official or a member of the staff could pick it up, someone who ought not to do so, and I am, presumably, therefore guilty of having commuted a breach of privilege.
I am saying that only to give an idea of my hon. Friend's confusion of mind on seeing the format of this cover. That is not in any way to say that he was right to give this information. Anybody who reads the Report will recognise my hon. Friend's state of mind at the time and will realise that this was one of the mitigating circumstances. It is not the main circumstance.

Mr. Shinwell: rose—

Mr. Barnett: My right hon. Friend was a member of the Committee and he has discussed this in great detail. He must allow me to make my own speech in my own way.
All who know my hon. Friend will be aware of his transparent honesty

when, in answer to Question 119, he said that it was not premeditated and believed that the evidence would be available in two or three days' time. I believe him and I hope that all other hon. Members will believe him.

Mr. Pannell: It is not true.

Mr. Barnett: My right hon. Friend is very unfair to say that it is not true.

Mr. Pannell: It is not true.

Mr. Barnett: Whether my right hon. Friend believes it to be true or untrue, I think it to be true when my hon. Friend tells me that it was not premeditated and that he believed that the evidence was to be published in two or three days. That does not mean that he was not very foolish and did not commit a breach. It is a question of what sort of punishment we should inflict upon him, and that is the only issue before us.
I think that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West who referred to this sort of punishment as a medieval pantomime. I do not want to play any part in a medieval pantomime. I would have been satisfied if we could have said that we reprimanded my hon. Friend for his breach of privilege, leaving it at that, but when we have to go through all the rigmarole which we know has to be gone through with the use of the word "reprimand", that is not something with which I am prepared to go along. After all the punishment of what we have said and what has been said in Committee about my hon. Friend, as a generous body of men and women we ought to be generous enough to say that we will leave it at that; and I hope that the House will do precisely that.

Mr. William Hamling: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept that Motion. Mr. Crouch.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I have listened to the debate this evening with a very heavy and unhappy heart. I have been in a tortured state of mind while we have debated what is to be done by way of censure by the House of one of its Members. I have read the Report


closely and most carefully and I have listened to the wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who spoke wise and fair words, and to the wisdom of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I have also listened to the contributions of those hon. Members who have sought to advise the House that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) should not receive the reprimand recommended by the Leader of the House and the Committee of Privileges.
I think that the House has already decided that a breach of privilege was committed. It is now merely a question of whether we decide to go ahead with the reprimand which has been recommended. It is an unhappy evening for me, but I do not think that it is wrong to detain the House on an unhappy occasion when a Member of Parliament is accused of a breach of privilege. It is not wrong for us before going into recess to pause and consider Members of Parliament and their duties to their constituents, to the House and to the country.
I say this because I hope that when the House votes tonight about what should be done to the hon. Member for West Lothian, hon. Members will go from here not afraid in future to speak out and seek out the truth in the House for all time, that they will not be made afraid by the power of the House and the privilege which it demands for itself.
I am a member of one of the Select Committees of the House, and I know the confusion which sometimes faces an hon. Member when some of the evidence is taken before him in private session and when there is sometimes a session on another day with the public and the Press present and one is able next morning to read the comments of witnesses. I speak tonight only briefly to say that this evening we have been talking about the duties of Members of Parliament in a very complex activity in the House and in Committee. I hope that what we decide tonight will not inhibit us in the way we think and act in future.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has made no attempt to condone the offence committed by my hon. Friend

the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), nor has any other speaker. I have listened to the major part of the debate, and not a single speaker has sought to defend my hon. Friend in relation to the alleged offence. All that has been done is to seek to mitigate the nature of the offence, and therefore to ask that we should not support the Report of the Committee of Privileges in asking Mr. Speaker to reprimand the hon. Member for West Lothian.
I wonder what the House would have said if the Select Committee had declared that my hon. Friend had committed a serious offence which was a contempt of the House and a breach of privilege, and had then declared that in the circumstances no action should be taken.

Mr. John Lee: Is not this precisely what the Committee of Privileges has done with regard to Mr. David Astor, whose motives are very much more suspect than those of my hon. Friend?

Mr. Shinwell: That interruption was really quite unnecessary. I will deal with everything that happened in the Committee, including the statements made in the course of evidence by Mr. Astor. I do not want to indulge in any unseemly comments about Mr. Astor. He was casual in his approach—[An HON. MEMBER: "Perjurous."] If anyone was arrogant it was Mr. Astor. He seemed to treat the whole affair as a farce. But he did admit, when I ventured to put the question to him that it was a scoop for theObserver. That was the attitude of a responsible editor of a reputable newspaper. He is condemned of contempt of the House and breach of privilege. There was a suggestion that he might be fined, but that was found to be impossible. There was no precedent and we had no authority to do so. Anyway, it was a matter for the House to consider, and that brings me to one of the crucial points, namely should my hon. Friend have been reprimanded by the Select Committee? We listened to the evidence, heard witnesses, including my hon. Friend and came to certain conclusions about what had happened—there was a breach of privilege, there was contempt of the House. Should we then have taken the initiative ourselves, without regard to the authority of the House and reprimanded my hon. Friend?
We had no authority to do so. That is the answer. I am amazed at all the irrelevancies to which we have listened. Of course there are very strong views about what is going on at Porton. Some of the newer Members of this House ought to be informed that many years ago some of us knew what was happening at Porton, and we disliked it intensely. We understand that these things happen. There is a measure of security about these tilings, but I do not object to an atempt being made from time to time to impinge on security in the public interest and in order to maintain freedom of expression, whether in the Press or the House.
What happened at Porton has nothing to do with the issue before the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) talked about mitigation of the offence, about a first-class hon. Member. I ventured to interrupt him and he rebuked me for doing so. All I asked him, and I ask it now, and would like an answer is: are there second-class hon. Members? Do we discriminate as betwen one hon. Member and another? Is there not complete equality in this community of ours? To seek to mitigate an offence on the ground that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian is a first-class hon. Member is going a little bit too far.
I know my hon. Friend better than anyone here. He represents the constituency that I first represented in 1922. I happen to know his family and his antecedents—perhaps I had better make no further comment about that, except to say that they were my most bitter opponents when I sought to win West Lothian in the years 1918 and 1922. 1 do not complain about that. I was glad to see the hon. Member here, and I welcomed him with open arms. This was a political transformation and the more we have of that the better. Perhaps some day hon. Members opposite will come and join the Labour Party because they see the light.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman complained about irrelevancies. He must himself keep to the subject.

Mr. Shinwell: I am just trying to dispose of a few errors but you are quite right to rebuke me. With the greatest possible respect, if you had been in the

Chair, if you had presided over this gathering earlier and listened to some of the irrelevancies, you would have been staggered. I come to the simple issue. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian admitted to us that he had handed over that document marked "confidential" and that he knew it to be confidential, when he had been pledged to secrecy as a member of the Select Committee.
He handed this document to a journalist. I put a question to him—it was a loaded question because I had compassion for him and I almost bent over backwards to help him. I asked him what was his purpose in handing over the document, was it that he wanted to correct some impression which had appeared in the newspaper. I used the phrase, "To get it straight". He responded that that was the purpose, but he added that he agreed that although the full statement was to be made by the Committee a few days later he had anticipated by handing over the document.
It was a double offence, and that is the issue—that and no more. All the rest about Porton and the freedom of the Press—and there are some people who want to give the Press far more freedom than I am prepared to give—are irrelevant. We do not have a free Press in this country anyway, but I will not blame my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) for that.
Talk about the freedom of the Press! He forgets the Thomsons, the late Beaverbrooks and Rothermeres and the rest of them. Freedom of the Press my foot! What are we to do about this? Nothing at all? Drop it? Does anyone really believe that we are happy about this? Does the hon. Member for Canterbury think that we are happy about it? Of course not. We have compassion for our colleagues in this House, even when they commit offences. This is not an offence against the members of the Select Committee. It is an offence against the authority and procedure of the House.
We must decide what to do. To let my hon. Friend completely off the hook is going a bit too far. The punishment must fit the crime. There can be no worse punishment than this. Many years ago, an hon. Member made a scandalous and scurrilous statement about his colleagues and the recommendation of the


Select Committee on Privileges was that he be reprimanded. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) rose in his place and moved the expulsion of that Member and he was expelled. [HON. MEMBERS: "A different case."] I agree that there is some difference. In the case to which I am referring scurrilous and scandalous language was used against colleagues. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was a question of money."] I admit that it was a very serious offence and a much more heinous offence than this one. Nevertheless, this is a serious offence. Despite the plea in mitigation, I am bound to say with all the compassion in the world, and with a desire to protect my hon. Friend, that there is no other course than to proceed as the Committee recommended.
It is a great pity that after my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House moved his Motion we did not accept it. I understand the desire for a debate. I tried to prevent a debate from taking place. I thought that my judgment was right. I still think it right, perhaps more so now than before. After all, this will appear in the Press, in the Scottish Press and in the newspapers in West Lothian and the surrounding area. This will do my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian no good at all. It might have been forgotten in a day or two, but now it will last for some time.
Sometimes our worst enemies are our friends. My hon. Friends, unwittingly, fortuitously, without deliberation and not being conscious of guilt or the effect of what they were doing, have done my hon. Friend a great deal of harm. He will be reprimanded and then he will come back among us and be regarded—and I use the expression of my hon. Friend—as a first-class Member of this House.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: There are two overriding considerations in this case, one of which was touched upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), namely, the element of turpitude, which is completely absent from this case. It is not possible to come to a decision in this case unless that factor is carefully examined. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington quoted the case of a

Member to whom severe punishment was meted out. The most important aspect of that case was that turpitude was proven against him. He had accepted money in what he was doing in committing a breach of privilege over a long time. I am glad to carry the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke) with me.
Therefore, it is of the greatest importance that in deciding what we should do about this case the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian acted completely honourably and with no trace of turpitude attaching to his name or conduct—and there is common ground on this—should be clearly established. It is all the more important to establish that at the end of a debate as at the beginning.
Secondly, when receiving recommendations from the Committee of Privileges, the House has always carefully considered the motivation of the Member involved. It is not possible—and here I disagree with my right hon Friend the Leader of the House and with the Leader of the Opposition—to make this simply a technical breach of privilege and to go on to decide to inflict this kind of punishment on my hon. Friend. I make no claim for my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian that he is a better Member than anybody else. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington. I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) wanted to make that sort of distinction. But my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian is a campaigner. He is eager. He pursues causes. That is his sole motivation. He was pursuing a cause and tabling Questions on this subject long before he became a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology; he had been interested in it for some considerable time.
When these Committees were set up, I was one of those who argued that there was a danger that they might not need lead to further information being provided to the people and the electorate but that, far from that, it would be possible for members of the executives— Ministers or members of the Civil Service or of the Armed Forces—so to arrange matters in the Select Committees that information of three types would be


given to the Committees: first, information which can appear and is already appearing in the newspapers; secondly, grey area information in respect of which members are told, "This is not top secret, but you cannot talk about it"; and, thirdly, information coming within the area of secrecy.
I said at the time, and I now repeat, that if that is to be the accepted principle, it will lead to a situation in which there will be 14 members of a certain Committee who will be given information coming within the grey area on the understanding that they must not reveal it to other Members of Parliament or anybody else, and then we shall have two classes of member. We shall have one class who say, "We are the experts. We have been taken into the Government's confidence. We know these things, but we cannot tell anybody." What was started as an honest and sincere attempt to increase the control of the Legislature over the Executive will end in the amount of information available to the electorate being diminished. Less information will be available than before.
I come to my final point. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition has left the Chamber, but he was present practically all day and I make no complaint about that. The right hon. Gentleman rightly included the matter of security in the inquiry. He asked Vice-Admiral Denning whether in the published Report there was anything which could be regarded as offending against the D notice system. The categorical answer was "No". Both the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend, in questioning my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, were fair and considerate.
But that leads us to the leading article published inThe Guardian this morning under the headline "Were these really secrets?" What the Editor ofThe Guardian says is relevant. He refers to the point which I have made in a different form. He argues that, if we were to accept that, in giving evidence to the Select Committee a number of civil servants or Ministers might say to the Committee, "We do not argue that there is anything top secret about this that would attract a D notice, but we do not want you to put it into the Report." AsThe Guardian said this morning,

Who would deny that the identity of the universities doing research work for Porton ought to be known? Should they have become known after Porton had 'sidelined' this information? Probably the science and technology committee would have omitted most of the information Porton asked to have excluded. And the reasons for exclusion would not have been security but to avoid political controversy.
That is an element of the situation which has not yet been considered today. It is convenient for people giving evidence to demand that something should be sidelined, although no security attaches to it, because they want to avoid political controversy. As it is late, I shall not go into the detailed evidence. Hon. Members will know from a careful reading of the Report that the civil servants, in their letter to the Clerk of the Select Committee, indicated on many occasions, "We would not find it convenient if you published this". They did not argue that security attached to it, that it was something the publication of which would endanger the security of the State.
In these matters the House has always recognised that the Chairman of a Select Committee—in this case my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer)—has an immediate duty to draw the attention of the House to what he considers to be aprima facie case of a breach of privilege. The House has always considered that the Committee of Privileges when doing its job is in some ways bound by certain conventions and has a duty to make a recommendation.
It has always been understood—I beg my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to accept this from me with the sincerity in which I say it to him—that the final arbiter is the whole of the Membership of the House of Commons, who are in this case to some extent sitting in judgment over one of their colleagues. It has always been understood that it is no affront to the most senior Committee of the House—the Committee of Privileges —that the House should come to a different conclusion.
The House, having taken into consideration the factors which have been advanced by hon. Members and the factors which I have now advanced and which the editor ofThe Guardian advanced this morning, and thereby having widened the debate, as it is the duty of the House to widen the debate, away from


the immediate offence, which in the first place is of a technical character and on which the Committee of Privileges had to move, is then in its own humility entitled to reach a different conclusion about a colleague.
I hope that the Government, accepting that, will be able to withdraw the Motion. If not, those of us who feel this way will have to go into the Lobby in support of our convictions.

Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 52.

Division No. 287.]
AYES
[7.43 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCann, John


Alldritt, Walter
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacColl, James


Allen, Scholefield
Fortescue, Tim
MacDermot, Niall


Archer, Peter
Freeson, Reginald
Macdonald, A. H.


Armstrong, Ernest
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Ginsburg, David
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Glover, Sir Douglas
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Goodhart, Philip
Maddan, Martin


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Goodhew, Victor
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Batsford, Brian
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bell, Ronald
Gourlay, Harry
Maude, Angus


Bence, Cyril
Gower, Raymond
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grant, Anthony
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bishop, E. S.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Millan, Bruce


Blackburn, F.
Gregory, Arnold
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Crey, Charles (Durham)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Miscampbell, Norman


Bossom, Sir Clive
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Monro, Hector


Braddock, Mrs. E. M
Hall, John (Wycombe)
More, Jasper


Braine, Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hannan, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harper, Joseph
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Murray, Albert


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Hattersley, Roy
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hawkins, Paul
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hazell, Bert
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
O'Malley, Brian


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Oram, Albert E.


Channon, H. P. G.
Henig, Stanley
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Coe, Denis
Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Coleman, Donald
Holland, Philip
Oswald, Thomas


Concannon, J. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Corfield, F. V.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Palmer, Arthur


Costain, A. P.
Hoy, James
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hunter, Adam
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Crouch, David
Iremonger, T. L.
Pavitt, Laurence


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peel, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
 Pentland, Norman


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jopling, Michael
Percival, Ian


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kelley, Richard
Pounder, Rafton


Dell, Edmund
Kenyon, Clifford
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Doig, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Doughty, Charles
Kimball, Marcus
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Eadie, Alex
Kitson, Timothy
Prior, J. M. L.


Eden, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pym, Francis


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lawson, George
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Emery, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Randall, Harry


English, Michael
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rees, Merlyn


Ennals, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Ensor, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Errington, Sir Eric
Longden, Gilbert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Loughlin, Charles
Ridsdale, Julian


Eyre, Reginald
Loveys, W. H.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lubbock, Eric
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Farr, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E)


Fernyhough, E.
MacArthur, Ian
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)




Roebuck, Roy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Wellbeloved, James


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Russell, Sir Ronald
Summers, Sir Spencer
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Scott-Hopkins, James
Swingler, Stephen
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Sharples, Richard
Symonds, J. B.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Tapsell, Peter
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Taverne, Dick
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Taylor,Edward M.(C'gow,Cathcart)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Silvester, Frederick
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Skeffington, Arthur
Tinn, James
Worsley, Marcus


Slater, Joseph
Tomney, Frank
Wright, Esmond


Small, William
Urwin, T. W.
Yates, Victor


Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Younger, Hn. George


Snow, Julian
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)



Speed, Keith
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spriggs, Leslie
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. Eric G. Varley and


Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Watkins, David (Consett)
Mr. Neil McBride.


Stodart, Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard





NOES


Abse, Leo
Faulds, Andrew
Moonman, Eric


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Newens, Stan


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Ogden, Eric


Barnes Michael
Hamling, William
Orme, Stanley


Barnett, Joel
Haseldine, Norman
Pardoe, John


Beaney, Alan
Heffer, Eric S.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bessell, Peter
Horner, John
Rankin, John


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sheldon, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, John (Reading)
Wilkins, W. A.


Dickens, James
Lestor, Miss Joan
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Woof, Robert


Driberg, Tom
Mackintosh, John P.



Dunnett, Jack
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mendelson, J. J.
Mr. William Hamilton and


Ellis, John
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. Michael Foot.


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)



Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report, and that Mr. Speaker do reprimand Mr. Tarn Dalyell for his breach of privilege and his gross contempt of the House.

Ordered,
That Mr. Tarn Dalyell do attend in his place forthwith.—[Mr. Peart.]

Mr. SPEAKERthen called upon Mr. DALYELLby name, and Mr. DALYELLstanding up in his place uncovered, Mr. SPEAKER,sitting in the Chair covered, delivered the following reprimand:
Tarn Dalyell, the House has expressed its agreement with the Report of the Committee of Privileges and has decided that you are guilty of a breach of privilege and of a

gross contempt of the House. The Committee of Privileges itself, whose Report the House has adopted, has pointed out that Select Committees and indeed Parliament itself depend largely on mutual trust and confidence between Members of Parliament and those who appear as witnesses before them and that this confidence would be greatly imperilled by any failure to observe the rules of the House by all those concerned in the work of the Committees. That you have broken such confidence is a matter of high concern to the House and to all who cherish it. I, therefore, as Speaker of the House, and upon its instructions, reprimand you as guilty of a breach of privilege and of a gross contempt of the House.

Ordered,
That the reprimand delivered by Mr. Speaker be entered upon the Journals of this House.—[Mr. Peart.]

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Monday, 14th October.—[Mr. Peart.]

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that ahead of us is a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I cannot agree with the Motion without asking for certain questions to be answered, I hope quickly and briefly, by the Leader of the House. I shall be brief because I realise that there is considerable business to be conducted and that the Consolidated Fund must be safeguarded.
In the south-west of England there have, as the House knows, been major floods, causing catastrophe to many homes and many farms and businesses. Certain questions to Ministers and inquiries which have been made both in the House and privately have not as yet been answered, and it is to ensure that we may have answers before the House rises, or that the House should come back early if sufficient answers are not tendered by the Government, that I am speaking now.
I ask the Leader of the House to assure me that the assurance given by the Minister of Housing and Local Government that generous aid would be given tobona fide relief funds, those funds having been established to give relief to those who have suffered hardship caused by the catastrophic flooding, will be fulfilled and that those grants from the Government will be sent to the relief funds during the next week.
There is hardship being suffered at the moment and the disbursement of money to those people is being limited by the inadequacy of the money available, and, therefore, to the people in Devon the need for a major contribution as promised by the Government is immediately essential.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If we come back early the hon. Member may be able to debate that, but he cannot now. The argument now is whether we should adjourn till 14th October. The hon. Member must not on this Motion debate the merits of what he would like to debate.

Mr. Emery: I will try very hard not to, Mr. Speaker, but you will realise that it is difficult when there is so much hardship and so much at stake.
My reason for not agreeing to the Motion is that I do not think that it would be right to adjourn till I can have the answers to these questions. Will that money be sent? If we cannot have an answer I am quite willing to stay here on behalf of my constituents till we do, and to do everything in my power to keep the House here to look after the interests of the people of Devon.
Will the Minister give an assurance that the Minister of Agriculture will make a statement about the compensation which will be paid to farmers for loss of crops? I have been pressing this issue with the Parliamentary Secretary in private—may I thank him for the manner in which he received my representations?— but the House will rise at the end of the week if this Motion is carried, and hon. Members will appreciate how the cold concrete of the Treasury may well set on the generosity of the compensation given to meet this hardship.
The Leader of the House has experience in agriculture, and he will realise that the arrangement of compensation in respect of damaged crops is not always easy. In this case we are concerned not so much with the crops which have not been harvested as with those which have been harvested—feedstuffs and hay, for example—and which, in many cases, have been ruined or swept away by flooding.
I want an assurance that the Government will make a fuller statement about the aid which they will give to the people of Honiton and others in Devon. Will the Minister also see that such a statement contains an assurance—which I believe has been tacitly meant but never given—that any compensation will be made available to meet not only individual hardship but also the hardship of those in business, because certain businesses have suffered losses of stocks which no inurance cover would have met. Moreover, the agricultural losses are great not only in crops, but in damage to roads, banks and fences, many of which have been swept away.
The question which I should like to put and. to have answered before I can vote for the Motion is whether the Government will consider that, where an agricultural improvement grant would normally be given for the replacement of such damaged facilities as roads, fences and banks, claims will not be limited to sums above £100. It is important that we should have a statement immediately, and before the House rises, because if such a statement is not given it is likely that many people will not immediately be able to do their repairs and maintenance and to replace their banks and fences. Secondly—and here I am protecting the Treasury—unless that assurance is given, it is likely that farmers and other agricultural interests will be inclined to push up their repair costs to above £100 in order to qualify for the grant and to get the payment from the Minstry. The last thing that I or the Government want to do is to encourage people to inflate their claims in respect of improvement grants to a figure above £100 in order to meet the qualifications. Would the Government make it clear that people will be able to make their claim for the grant in respect of any sum, perhaps, above £30 rather than above £100?
If the Government cannot give me an assurance about these issues, then I must vote against the Motion, because I should then wish to try to keep Ministers here so that the people of Devon were properly served.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: At the end of the summer Session inevitably there are a number of loose ends, but possibly on this occasion we have rather more than usual and they are rather more urgent than usual. I shall speak for only a few minutes because today the business of the House has been dislocated and, moreover, many hon. Members wish to speak on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
But I draw attention particularly to our obligations in respect of the continuing crisis in Biafra, which represents one of the reasons against our adjourning at the end of the week and for the period indicated in the Motion. We have had two debates on this subject in the last few weeks, one under Standing Order No. 9 and the other, a few days ago, on the Adjournment of the House.
Almost every hon Member will agree that these debates served a very useful purpose and, at a time when perhaps the House is not at its greatest height of public prestige, they may well have demonstrated to the public that the House of Commons cares about matters of great importance in which humanitarian considerations are at a premium. In such debates we perhaps see ourselves at our best.
But both those debates left one question unanswered—the continuation of the sale of arms to the Federal Government of Nigeria. I am prepared to accept more excuses from the Commonwealth Secretary than from many other Ministers, because he is a very good Minister who has tried very hard in difficult circumstances to make a useful and constructive contribution to the abatement of that horrible war and to offering methods for its termination. Nevertheless, I am left dissatisfied with the Government's answers to this question. It has been argued several times that as long as we sell arms to Nigeria, this enables—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member is going into the merits of the case. He can only indicate reasons why he does not wish the House to adjourn, and he has probably done that adequately already.

Mr. Lee: I have tried to keep my remarks in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Several excuses have been given why arms should continue to be sold to the Federal Government, but many of us would like to see the supply of arms cut off. Until and unless we are given an adequate answer to this question, I am prepared to see the adjournment of the House deferred. It has been argued that the supply of arms continues our influence with the Government of Nigeria, but it could as easily be argued that if we sold arms to Biafra, that would give us a certain influence over Colonel Ojukwu. That is a logical argument, although I am sure that the Government would not accept it. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have to persuade his right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary that many of us remain deeply dissatisfied with the answers which we have had on the subject. We are loath to adjourn because of the failure of the Government to


provide a convincing answer for the continuance of this policy.
There are a number of other matters of uncompleted business. The situation in Czechoslovakia is fraught with the gravest possible consequences. Between now and October anything could happen and hon. Members in all parts of the House, and particularly those who are proud to be on the left of the Labour Party, are profoundly disturbed by the pressures that are being applied to that country.
What is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards these developments and what policy would they follow in the event of certain eventualities occurring? I will not enlarge on this difficult situation, except to appeal to the Leader of the House to assure us that in certain circumstances the House would be recalled to consider the crisis. In some ways this is the most important problem looming over us.
I do not pretend that the other matters I have in mind are of comparable importance. The other day the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) sought unsuccessfully to raise, under Standing Order No. 9, the question of the operation of the takeover code of the City of London. Some of us are pardonably sceptical of the ethics of takeovers and, realising that there must be certain tributes to dignity inherent in that code, we should like to hear the views of the Government in general and the Board of Trade in particular about the gradual reduction of competition in private enterprise—competition which, we are told in capitalist mythology, regulates and makes the private enterprise system more efficient, a private enterprise system which the Labour Party is pledged to end.
I do not know how long my right hon. Friend intends to give for consideration of the Transport Bill when it emerges in a somewhat mangled state from another place. Many of my hon. Friends would have liked to have made short shrift of many of the Amendments manufactured by otherwise not overworked Members of the other place. We must ensure that there is no further obstruction when the Bill is sent there for a second time.
The Government are pregnant with proposals dealing with another place and we look forward to hearing more of those proposals in greater detail. We trust that the rash of radicalism which followed the rejection of the Rhodesia Order by the other place a few weeks ago is still being sustained and that the Government have not had second thoughts or want to parley with the other side on this issue. A number of my hon. Friends could give some short, sharp answers to some suggestions that might come from the Opposition.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I rise to make only one request to the Leader of the House, and it relates to Czechoslovakia.
We are being asked to rise the day after tomorrow for 10 weeks and during that time hon. Members will not have an opportunity to ask Questions in the House about developments in Czechoslovakia. We have a distinguished permanent representative at the United Nations and it is open to the Foreign Secretary to give him instructions.
I urge the Leader of the House to accept that in the present situation there is a threat to the security of the world and to world peace and that, therefore, consideration should at least be given by the Foreign Secretary to the question of what advice and instructions should be given to Lord Caradon, our permanent representative at the United Nations. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say that a statement of the Government's intentions in this matter will be made before we adjourn.
The record of Britain toward Czechoslovakia has not been very distinguished in the past. Munich, 1938, and the events of that year will stink in the nostrils of many people for many years to come. In 1948, many of us felt, after thecoup in Czechoslovakia, that we were powerless to act. Perhaps today the force of world opinion may bring more successful pressure to bear on those who at present are bringing pressure to bear on Czechoslovakia. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to urge his right hon. Friend to make a statement before we adjourn.
We are not unmindful of the reference to Czechoslovakia made by the Foreign Secretary when we debated foreign affairs


recently. It was moderate and it was appreciated in all parts of the House. It was a wise, statesmanlike approach to the problem. But many of us remain desperately worried about developments in Czechoslovakia. We would not like to feel that we are adjourning powerless to intervene in the House and express our views on the matter. While I appreciate that the Leader of the House cannot commit himself, I beg him to use his best endeavours to persuade the Foreign Secretary to make a statement before we adjourn for the Recess.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Henig: We should not adjourn until my right hon. Friend has given certain assurances. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) about the situation in Nigeria. While I will not, on this occasion, discuss the merits of the matter, my right hon. Friend will be aware that only yesterday the Leader of the Federal Government in Nigeria, General Gowon, announced that he might want to resort once again to a policy of crushing the rebels. That was the tenor of his speech, although it was reported in a somewhat lenient fashion.
Her Majesty's Government have aligned themselves with the Federal Government to the extent of supplying them with arms. We are, therefore, held to be involved. Although this has been an Executive act, my right hon. Friend would, I am sure, not wish to pursue the policy of supplying arms to the Federal Government if it were known that the majority of hon. Members here were against it.
If the House now rises for 10 weeks it is possible that there will be a flare-up of the fighting in Nigeria at a time when hon. Members will not be able to state their views in the House about whether or not we should continue the supply of arms. Whatever view one may take of the wisdom or otherwise of supplying arms, it would be wrong, in the event of a major flare-up, if the House were prevented from fulfilling its function of directing the actions of Ministers.
I want an assurance that if serious fighting starts again in Nigeria, and Her Majesty's Government wish to continue to implicate themselves by supporting

and arming one side, Parliament will be recalled so that hon. Members may determine whether or not they approve of this policy.
To speak in more general terms, it seems to me quite wrong that we should adjourn now for 10 weeks. My right hon. Friend has the responsibility in these matters. Does he think it a very good idea that Parliament should rush business and have all-night sittings, that week after week he should say that there is no time to discuss this or that subject, and that he should then propose, at this time in July, that the House should not meet again until October? If hon. Members need to refresh themselves they can do so and still be back in September—and even by the beginning of September.
I use as an illustration one matter that has been mentioned before and on which there has been some, but not enough, assurance. The Divorce Reform Bill has not yet completed its progress, so that the House as a whole has not had a chance to give its judgment on the Measure. I cannot discuss the merits of the Bill here, but I do not think that any one would disagree that the House has a responsibility. Thousands of people will be affected by the provisions of that Bill if it is enacted, or by lack of them if it is not. Hon. Members are getting scores of letters asking when the House will make up its mind. In reply, one has to write, "I have made up my mind, and I think that everyone else has, but we cannot discuss the Bill because we are going off for 10 weeks' holiday." It would be quite easy to dispose of a Bill like this by staying here until next Monday.
Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that, after telling the House repeatedly that there was no time to discuss all sorts of serious matters, he should, shortly afterwards, suggest that we go away for 10 weeks because there is nothing for us to do? I hope that my right hon. Friend will reply to these points. Unless he does, I shall feel compelled to vote against the Motion.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I should first like to reply very briefly to one interesting point. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) must realise the difference between Government legislation and private Members'


legislation. It has always been an accepted tradition of the House that we pay very great attention to strong minority views on a Private Member's Bill. Whilst I am largely in support of both the Measures that have been held up for want of time, I do not think that in the long term it is harmful that those holding very strong minority views should be able to defeat a Measure by virtue of their feeling. Government legislation is very different.
I have no doubt that the sponsor of the Divorce Reform Bill might have succeeded had he not been so obdurate in relation to one Clause. It is because of that that he has not been able, perhaps, to achieve the success he sought.

Mr. Neil Marten: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), in criticising the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig), has not recalled that the hon. Gentleman was or is a lecturer in politics. Perhaps that is why the hon. Gentleman did not understand the difference between the two types of Bill.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The point I want to make arises from the same disease from which we are all suffering. We have been suffering from what I call "Government by ordeal" for the last three months, and that ordeal has arisen because of the vast amount of indigestible legislation with which we have had to cope. One of the direct and admitted effects is that the Government and, in particular, the President of the Board of Trade, wanted legislation the import of which the right hon. Gentleman set out in a rather rough and ready fashion in Cmnd. 3633—"Hotel Development Incentives". That White Paper states in plain language that the Government propose to introduce legislation to carry into effect the terms broadly set out therein.
The only reason why we have not had that legislation this Session, and will not see it at any rate until after the Queen's Speech, is the Transport Bill and the other Measures which have so clogged the wheels of the Parliamentary machine as to make it impossible for the House to turn to issues which would be supported by all parties. But unless there is very early legislation this White Paper

will cause considerable difficulty in the trade. I therefore ask the Leader of the House, as a matter of urgency, to draw this subject to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade and give an undertaking that he will make an announcement forthwith clarifying the present proposals.
We had an undertaking that we would have a statement. I cannot say that it was absolutely explicit that we would have it by the end of July but that was expected. In paragraph 44 of the White Paper, the Government state:
The arrangements for administering the Hotel Development incentive Scheme will be determined in the light of decisions to be reached on these matters. The Government intends to announce its conclusions later this year.
The White Paper was issued at the beginning of May.
As a result, further statements were made. The Minister of State, Board of Trade was seen by those of us of all parties who are concerned in the matter, and we were told that we would have an early announcement in the House, at any rate clarifying the position. The Leader of the House will realise the difficulty when I refer to just one paragraph. In order to save time I do not propose to refer to any other paragraph because I think that when the President of the Board of Trade has his attention drawn to the one item he will recognise that other matters, too, require an explanation.
Paragraph 13, in page 5, which deals with one of the most important proposals, states:
Moreover grants and loan assistance will only be available for establishments which already, or after taking advantage of the scheme, will regularly provide at least 10 bedrooms for the accommodation of travellers and short-term visitors and have at least one public room available for their common use at all reasonable hours.
That statement leads to very great ambiguity as to whether it means that hotels must have 10 rooms available for daily visitors, or whether they have to keep some available, and, if so, how many. Or is the accommodation to be available only for the package type of tour or the one-night stand—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting to the merits of the case rather than dealing with the Question before the House.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I hope not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not asking for a decision one way or the other. All I am asking for is what we were promised, a clear explanation of the policy laid down, bearing in mind that anyone who carries out this work at this time has been told that he should keep accounts and he will be paid retrospectively if and when legislation is carried into effect. It is most unusual even before we have seen such a Bill to be told that the matter will be dealt with retrospectively. Those concerned should be fully informed im-mediately about where they stand.
I could name other examples which arise in the White Paper but as they are well known and I have adverted to them previously, I shall not deal with them now. I hope that we can have an early statement. It must be well known in the Ministry what is required. If before we go into Recess we could have an assurance of what is in the mind of the Government we could perhaps have some definite date given with reference to the proposals.
I have been asked by members of the trade to draw attention to these matters, which are of great importance. The whole of the tourist industry, which is one of the most successful industries in the country, depends on having an abundant supply of accommodation of the right type and quality as early as possible. We shall be losing a great deal of overseas earnings and will not be able to get the benefit we should get at home if earl yaction is not taken on these matters. I therefore hope the Leader of the House will draw the attention of his right hon. Friend to them tonight so that we may have a decision as soon as possible.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Clifford Kenyon: I support this Motion. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) I have not come to look upon a Recess as a holiday. If one takes one's duties in a constituency seriously one is not allowed to have a holiday.
I speak on this occasion as chairman of the Selection Committee. I want to put to my right hon. Friend a few points which I have considered over the last year to see if the congestion which has arisen in the last three months of this Session, and which arises every year, can

be avoided. With better planning by the Government I think it certainly can. I think the blame for the unfinished legislation lies both with the Government and with hon. Members. We have only ourselves to blame very often for the frustration we find at the end of a Session.
I should like the Government, especially the Leader of the House, to consider that at the beginning of a new Session he should have prepared and ready major Bills for immediate introduction. If a start were made on major Bills in November and they were sent to Committee we should not have the long delays which cause us at this time of the year to rush things, or try to rush things. We should not be in the position in which we find ourselves today with unfinished legislation both Government and Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to stop the hon. Member but he is not speaking to the Motion. We cannot have a debate on the business of the House. We can debate only matters related to the Motion, which says that we should adjourn on the date mentioned.

Mr. Kenyon: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was afraid that I was out of order, but I did not want to find it necessary to speak again in the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, when any subject can be raised.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, during the Recess, will consider what I have said. From his predecessor we had a promise that he would meet the Selection Committee at the beginning of this Session. I want the present Leader of the House to say that he will do the same because, if we can co-operate better, we shall not find ourselves in this sort of situation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Gentleman finished? Mr. Bruce-Gardyne.

Mr. Kenyon: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, I thought that the hon. Member had finished. If he has not, I must indicate to him that while the House would be interested to hear these matters, this is not the occasion to discuss them.

Mr. Kenyon: Compulsorily, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will finish and I will speak on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: The matter which I wish to raise is a comparatively narrow one, but it is of considerable importance in Scotland and it is one about which we must have discussions before the House rises for the Summer Adjournment. It concerns a Statutory Instrument tabled by the Government a week or two ago, the Schools (Scotland) Code (Amendment No. 1) Regulations, 1968.
The purpose of that Statutory Instrument is set out in the accompanying Explanatory Note, which explains clearly that the effect of the passage of the Regulations will be to require local authorities in Scotland to dismiss teachers in primary schools who have not registered with the General Teaching Council by 1st August and to dismiss teachers in secondary schools who have not so registered, except in exceptional circumstances, for which special provision is made.

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order. I apologise to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). I appreciate his argument, but I understand that he is one of those who have been successful in the Ballot for debates on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill on precisely this topic. Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to pre-empt a later debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that there is anything out of order in what the hon. Member is doing. None the less, I think that such a custom is undesirable and that if there is to be a further debate during the day an hon. Member should reserve his opportunity for that moment.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Further to the point of order. My hon. Friend's subject for discussion later tonight is very far down the list. It is the thirty-first subject selected for debate. While it is possible that the subject might be reached, precedent would suggest that that is unlikely. This is the last occasion when we have an opportunity to raise this im-

portant matter for Scotland before the House adjourns. I hope very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow my hon. Friend to develop his argument to some extent, as there will not be an opportunity for him to raise it later tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not ruled the hon. Member out of order. In any event, he cannot discuss the merits of the matter. I merely indicated that it would be a little unfair to other hon. Members if anybody took an occasion like this to discuss the merits of a matter which is to be discussed later in the day.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Until my hon. Friend was interrupted by a Liberal Member, he was not, I understand, out of order. Surely it is —[Interruption.] I wish that the Liberal Party would keep quiet. [Interruption.] I wish that you would rebuke the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am putting a serious point of order.
My hon. Friend was making a point which is of concern to Scotland. He was interrupted by a Liberal Member after having been called to speak. It seems absolutely wrong that the Liberal Member should question the authority of the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member will, I think, realise that I have not ruled his hon. Friend out of order.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Further to the point of order. May I have your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I understand that the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) wishes to discuss a matter because we will not be able to have it discussed on the Floor of the House before we adjourn for the Recess. His hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), who intervened, made the point that he wanted to discuss the merits of the Regulations. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] If the hon. Member for South Angus wishes to discuss the merits, I also would wish to do so, because I take the opposite view from the hon. Member.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have merely endeavoured to indicate the procedural


question of order. Nothing that the hon. Member has said so far has been out of order. I have, however, indicated that on this Motion we cannot go into the merits of any other matter, but should speak to the Motion, which deals with whether we should adjourn between the dates proposed.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I know very well that we cannot discuss the merits of the issue on this Question, and I have no intention of trying to do so. But my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) was right to point out that there is no prospect of reaching the debate which I have set down for business on the Consolidated Fund Bill. What I am about to do— if the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) will give me a chance—is to argue that we should have opportunity to discuss a Prayer which has been put down against the Regulations. I have no intention of discussing the merits of the matter because I fully accept that we cannot do so at this stage.
On a matter of considerable importance to the teaching profession in Scotland, regardless of the view we may take on the merits, we should have been given, and we should be given, an opportunity to discuss the Prayer which has been put down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and certain of my hon. Friends against the Regulations, but I understand that no such opportunity is to be given before the Houses rises for the Summer Recess.
The Statutory Instrument was tabled on 12th July, to come into operation on 1st August. In other words, there was barely a fortnight of Parliamentary time in which a Prayer against it could be debated, and this at a time when the Parliamentary timetable was heavily charged. On the Business Question last week, I asked the Leader of the House whether he would ensure either that time was provided to debate the Prayer or that the coming into operation of the Instrument should be deferred. The right hon. Gentleman replied—this is column 1674 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—that he would give the matter consideration and certainly have a discussion with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have endeavoured to ascertain whether there has been any result

from such discussions, but I have heard of none. I still hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that there will be opportunity to discuss the Prayer.
I can show the importance by reference to an Answer which I received today, which discloses that 4,500 teachers in Scotland who were known to be teaching in schools at the end of the last school session have not paid a registration fee to the General Teaching Council. This means that, unless these 4,500 teachers have paid the fee by 1st August, they will be liable under the Statutory Instrument as it now stands to lose their jobs. I do not for a moment suggest that they will lose their jobs, and that that is the way the Regulations will be applied, but I do say that it is a matter of great importance and that we should have an opportunity to discuss the merits before we rise for the Recess, in view of the implications which the Instrument appears to have for all those teaching in Scotland.
In tabling the Regulations in the way they have and in giving such ludicrously inadequate time for a Prayer against them to be debated, the Government have not treated the House with adequate courtesy. I appreciate that we may be able to debate the Prayer in the hangover period after we return, but by that time the Instrument will have been in operation for about two and a half months. That, therefore, is no adequate answer.
There is considerable anxiety on this matter in the teaching profession in Scotland. We should have opportunity to debate the Prayer, and I hope that the Leader of the House will assure us that time will be made available to debate it before the House rises for the Recess.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I have no wish to enter into the many matters which the House might wish to discuss before it rises for the Summer Recess. I can appreciate that the only hon. Member who supported the Motion was the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon). I understand his anxiety to visit his constituents, for we have seen some of the letters that he has written to them in the Press recently.
I shall confine myself to one matter, since I do not want to try the patience of the Leader of the House, who is a


very patient man. It is an important constituency matter which I have tried to raise on the Adjournment, but I have been unsuccessful in obtaining an Adjournment debate. I want to take this opportunity of asking whether the Minister of Transport could come here to explain his decision to close the railway line between Edinburgh and Carlisle, through my constituency. I was surprised that he chose to make the announcement in a Written Answer last week.
The Minister should make a statement to explain why he made the decision when the public inquiry established by the Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee under the 1962 Act came to the conclusion that substantial hardship would be caused if the line were closed; when the Borders Economic Consultative Group set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland to advise him on matters in this region advised that the line should be retained; when the Scottish Economic Planning Council, another part of the Government's machinery, advised that it should be retained; and when the Government's own consultants from Edinburgh University into the economy of the region advised that its closure would have an unfortunate effect on planning targets.
The Minister should explain why he took the decision to close the line, despite all the evidence he received from those quarters, especially when a compromise solution had been put forward to him that he might, in view of the expense of keeping the whole line, retain the branch line to Hawick.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going into the merits of the case.

Mr. Steel: I shall finish very quickly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am only pleading that before the House rises for the Summer Recess, a further explanation should be given to hon. Members. I know that this plea will strike other Members as a purely constituency point, but it is of considerable national importance that such a decision can be taken and announced merely in a Written Answer, when we have just spent a great deal of time debating the Transport Bill, which enables grants to be given to uneconomic lines in areas

where they are socially and economically justified. Here is an area which the Government themselves have earmarked for economic development. This is a matter of national interest, and I hope that the Leader of the House will give me some satisfaction in his reply.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want to raise one short but important point. I do not intend to vote against the Motion, but between now and the rising of the House I should like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether the Scottish Grand Committee should meet in Edinburgh in October.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Why?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I believe that this could be done during the Recess without interfering with the ordinary procedure of the House.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: For what business?

Mr. Hughes: I suggest that the Scottish Grand Committee should be called in October, when the party conferences are not meeting, that Scottish Questions should be asked there and Scottish Motions submitted by Scottish Members should be considered there. There is in Scotland at present a demand that the whole question of the administration of Scottish affairs should be considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide of the Motion. He said that he does not oppose it. What he is saying has nothing to do with the Recess as such, which is what we are concerned with.

Mr. Hughes: I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that I was on the fringe of being in order, and I overstepped the mark.
I ask the Leader of the House to give this his earnest consideration because there is in Scotland a strong feeling that our Recesses are too long. It would alleviate that feeling if in the second week in October we met in Scotland to discuss Motions and have Scottish Questions answered.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman take note that the Conservative Party conference starts in the week of 7th October? Does he want a Labour Party meeting in Scotland in October, or does he want a meeting representative of the House of Commons?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) would be out of order if he answered that question.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: I raise a point of importance in my constituency. I hope that the Leader of the House or the Minister of Housing and Local Government will be able to clear it up before the House rises.
It is caused by an anomaly which arises under the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967, and the Rent Act, 1968. The basic situation is that in London where a flat has a rateable value of below £400 and the rent is more than two-thirds of the rateable value it is illegal to charge a premium for the sale of the lease.
It is widely believed that rent in this context means all the payments which are made by the tenant to the Landlord, including service charge and, indeed, for example, excess charges which might be imposed when Selective Employment Tax is raised by 50 per cent. in September. The effect of this is that a very large number of good quality flats in London for which people have paid large prices for the benefit of a long lease are now unsaleable. A large number of sales have taken place, and it may well be that those who have taken part in them have acted illegally.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government recognises this anomaly and has said that he will make investigations and take an early opportunity to put it right. But we have had no statement. It would be wrong for us to go away for a Recess of this length without the Leader of the House or the Minister either clearing up the present legal position or making clear that retrospective legislation will be introduced when we return to ensure that such sales are brought within the law.

8.53 p.m.

Miss Maragaret Herbison: One matter that I wish to raise is the Regulations affecting the teaching

profession that have been laid by the Secretary of State for Scotland, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we ought to have a discussion about them.
From my knowledge of the Regulations and the history that led up to them, I am sure that when the hon. Member hears the debate he will agree that they are right, but because of the present discontent it is important for the teaching profession in Scotland that we should have time to discuss the Regulations. I ask the Leader of the House to consider giving that time even if it means that we have to continue a few days longer before we begin the Recess.
There is another point which I feel strongly. Scotland at present greatly needs highly-skilled and highly-trained people for its industries. It was agreed that we should have one of our Estimates days in the Scottish Grand Committee to deal with the important question of further education, particularly as it affects technical colleges. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles is not in his place because it was due to him and to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) that all Scottish Members were denied the right to discuss this vital question of technical education. Since that is the case, and since it is of vital importance, not only for education but for the whole economic set-up in Scotland, that we should discuss these matters, I ask my right hon. Friend to give serious consideration to whether it is not possible to allow a few days longer before we rise for the Recess.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I am sure that I speak for many hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that we all understand that the Leader of the House has had a particularly demanding Parliamentary day and that we do not want, out of humanity to him, to retain him here for longer than strictly necessary.

Mr. Emery: That is not the question.

Mr. van Straubenzee: One must be kind and I have a great regard for fellow Gunners. It is very necessary, nevertheless, that two other matters should be


put before the right hon. Gentleman as reasons why we should not adjourn on Friday for as long as is suggested. In case there are hon. Members opposite who doubt one's personalbona fides on this matter—there are none on this side —I may add that I shall be in London throughout August and that I am perfectly willing to attend the House.
I hope that every possible clamour will be made against the Government's slinking away at least a week early, trying to get away from the constant probing criticisms which it is the duty of this House to subject them to.

Mr. Marten: And before the House of Lords rises, too.

Mr. van Straubenzee: As my hon. Friend says, they are going before another place rises. Since the other place will still be sitting, all the facilities of this place will be operating still and those distinguished people, who are not perhaps present at the moment, who cover our proceedings are going to be here.
There are two reasons why I am genuinely anxious. First, at this moment, there is taking place in Gibraltar a highly important constitutional conference. What I want to know is what arrangements are being made, if we are to adjourn on Friday, to keep the House in touch with what is proposed.
I wonder if you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have had the opportunity of appreciating just how potentially serious the situation in Gibraltar is and how, therefore, it impinges on our decision on whether or not to accept the Motion. I was recently privileged to spend five days in Gibraltar. The people of Gibraltar are under siege. The Spanish Government are behaving towards them in a way totally unforgivable in a civilised nation.
Our principal negotiator at this moment has been forced publicly to concede that there shall be written into a form of statute—an Order in Council— a declaration of the permanent link between the fortress of Gibraltar and this country, and the discussions are only half way through. That is why I raise this matter in relation to the question whether we should adjourn or not. But the significance of the position into which the Government's chief negotiator has

been forced is that people simply do not accept in Gibraltar the word of Her Majesty's Government. The most awful experience any hon. Member can undergo —and I have just undergone it—is to assert firmly that the word of the British Government means what it says and then to find that the people there simply do not believe what one says.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having difficulty in relating the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Motion, which is concerned with the date of the Recess.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am much obliged. I was seeking to suggest that these negotiations were half way to their completion. I was pointing out why this declaration was necessary, but I shall not pursue that matter. Before we agree to adjourn, I want to know in relation to a very important fortress colony of this country, one to which certainly my constituents and, I suspect, many people throughout the country feel a special tie, what arrangements the Leader of the House is making so that we may be kept in touch with the progress of these negotiations.
How unwise it is that we should adjourn on Friday when obviously the negotiations will be only half way through their course! I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have something clear and definite to say. I also hope that he will say that if as a result of the next stage of these negotiations the Spanish Government take further punitive measures towards Her Majesty's subjects in Gibraltar, which is not without foundation, he will not hesitate through the appropriate consultative channels to request Mr. Speaker to recall the House. Nothing else will do in this serious situation which confronts people in Gibraltar.
I want, secondly, to ask what arrangements the Leader of the House is making to keep us in touch with the clearly developing delicate situation in Rhodesia, one which potentially could lead—I cannot possibly explore this within the narrow confines of this debate—to a settlement honourable for both sides. It is plain to all of us that the situation in Rhodesia is fluid. It is plain to all of us that the skills of diplomacy could be used in the period covered by the Motion to secure


for both sides a settlement which is honourable. I should like to know what arrangements the right hon. Gentleman is making if necessary to recall the House and if necessary to inform the House of the potential arrangements which could be made for a settlement between both sides.
You will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker better than anyone how limited an hon. Member is in exploring these matters with appropriate deference to the Chair, but our constituents feel very strongly about them. I was here at the start of the debate and temporarily called out and then returned and so I have listened to most of the speeches. The Leader of the House can be assured that there are many hon. Members who are perfectly willing to continue work into August and who strongly resent partaking of a method of escape from public criticism in which apparently the Leader of the House is now engaged. While he smiles gently into his papers, let me say this to him. [Laughter.] He does not smile at a fellow Gunner like that and get away with it. If a vote is called, I shall back my words by my actions, and I hope that other hon. Members will do the same.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I do not want to delay the House very long and I do not want to delay the House from its Recess for very long, but we ought to delay it for a short time so that several promised statements can be made. I feel rather guilty about going back to my home at this time and leaving a desk littered with unsolved problems, and I should have thought that the Government were in a similar position. There are many statements from various Ministries that we ought to have.
Quite frankly many people expect this. This is surely our duty. The Government ought to clear their desks and give us the statements we have been promised. In the South-West we want an answer to the inquiry on the Meldon Dam project, one of the most important projects in the South-West, supplying water over a very large area. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government keeps on saying, "in a day or so", but this is not good enough. The Minister ought to come to the House and give us a decision on this project.
My second point concerns the Minister of Agriculture. It is all very well for

the former Minister of Agriculture to put his glasses on the end of his nose. This matter should have been cleared up before he left the Ministry. The present Minister promised to make a statement before we go into Recess on the control of imports of dairy products. We have heard absolutely nothing so far, and many dairy farmers are anxious to know what is to happen before autumn. Further serious damage could be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honi-ton (Mr. Emery) has already referred to my third point—floods in the South-West and the damage caused by them. Once again, it is the Ministry of Housing and Local Government which has promised a statement about what would be done, and what help would be given to the affected farmers. I do not want to return to the South-West to face them without knowing what the Government are to do. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to sit there and smile, they have never experienced the sort of difficulties caused by such floods.
The Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Employment and Productivity ought to tell us exactly what they intend to do about the future of the Agricultural Training Board now that the National Farmers' Union has said "No" to the Board. We want to know what would be the future of this body and its chairman, and how it will be operated when two-thirds of farmers are not prepared to pay the levy.
My fifth point concerns a Motion on the Order Paper sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, which I had the privilege of signing, concerning television reception in the South-West. If ever there was a scandal it was this. We want to hear exactly what the Postmaster-General intends to do. We cannot get B.B.C.2 and we can hardly see B.B.C.1. Interference is a very real problem, and we should be debating it. I do not want to spend time at home during the Recess without being able to see some television. There is not much chance for me to do so while I am here. I hope that before we go into recess we will have the statements promised us. I hope that the Leader of the House will take this matter seriously and give us some idea as to how the Government are to clear their desks before the Recess.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: There are three matters on which I should like the guidance of the Leader of the House. The first is the concern which Scottish Members feel about the matter raised, so rightly, by the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire. North (Miss Herbison), namely, the fact that the Scottish Grand Committee, which is accustomed to having a set number of debates during a Session, has been cheated of an important debate by the thoughtless action of members of the Liberal Party and one or two other hon. Members.

Mr. David Steel: I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the Government made no attempt to relay the Motion before the House, as they could have done upon any Friday.

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is no explanation or excuse for action which I regard as quite intolerable, coming from a group of Members who rarely put in an appearance at these Committee meetings.

Mr. David Steel: Disgraceful.

Mr. MacArthur: Disgraceful perhaps, but true. There is no disgrace in the truth.
I do not know whether the Leader of the House is able to tell us whether it is the Government's intention to try to raise the matter of further education in the week or two which remain to us in October. I hope that that will be the case. If not, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will find time before we rise to allow Scottish Members to debate a matter which, as the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North said, is a matter of real concern to Scottish people.
The second matter about which I am concerned was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). I have no intention of discussing the merits of the case. An important Statutory Instrument was laid before the House on 12th July and some of my hon. Friends and myself have sought to pray against the Order to discover the reasons for some of the decisions contained in that Statutory Instrument. It is important that this matter should be debated soon because of the

uncertainty created in the education profession and among local education authorities about the action which they should take. By the time that we return in October, the Order will have been in force for two and a half months. I know that education authorities are making decisions based on that Order which, I believe, would be more wisely taken in the light of a debate in the House.
Thirdly, in September, the rate of Selective Employment Tax is to be raised by 50 per cent. in most cases. We have referred to this matter many times in the House and in Standing Committee. One group of people who will be particularly affected in September and about whom questions have been asked but not answered are the hotel keepers in Scotland. Without wishing to be discourteous and raising the merits of this case, may I say that hon. Members have tried to raise this question many times in recent weeks without success. The Guillotine fell at awkward moments during the Committee and later stages of the Finance Bill, and there was no opportunity to raise the matter until the Third Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) raised it then, but the Government were unable or unwilling to answer his questions.
On Monday last week, we had a debate on the Selective Employment Tax in Scotland and its serious effects on the service industries, and I referred to these hotels. I asked certain questions which the Government did not see fit to answer. In September, hoteliers will find themselves confronted with the requirement to pay 50 per cent. more in Selective Employment Tax. Certainly the remoter areas know that they will have the tax refunded—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Consolidated Fund Bill. If the hon. Gentleman catches my eye, he may raise this matter then. He may also raise the matter which he wishes to raise in detail if he can persuade the House to return earlier or to stay later, but he cannot debate it now.

Mr. MacArthur: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. I am suggesting to the Leader of the House that we should not rise for the Recess until we have had a statement


from the Government explaining the position. The need for that statement is twofold. First, there are some hotels which even now cannot discover whether they come within the repayment zones. Secondly, the tourist industry in Scotland wants to know whether, as I believe is the case, it will be paying £150,000 a year more in Selective Employment Tax after the so-called concession than before it.

9.15 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): The debate tonight has followed precedent in that many topics have been raised. This Motion provides hon. Members with an opportunity to raise urgent matters affecting their constituency or national or Government policy.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) raised an issue which greatly affects the South-West, namely, flooding. He was supported by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). I understand their concern. I was specifically asked whether money will be sent tobona fide organisations for the relief of the constituents of the hon. Member for Honiton and of others who have been seriously affected by flooding.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me to use my influence to get my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement about compensation, particularly with regard to loss of crops. The hon. Gentleman also asked for an assurance that hardship to individuals would be considered. He specifically referred to improvement grants. I should be out of order if I went into the merits of the question. I undertake to convey these views to my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Housing and Local Government and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I recognise it is an important matter.

Mr. Emery: The right hon. Gentleman has gone a long way towards doing what I asked him to do, and I am grateful to him. We must know. May we have a statement before the end of the week?

Mr. Peart: I will consult the two Ministers concerned immediately. I will tell them that hon. Members feel strongly about the position in the South-West. The hon. Member for Torrington knows that

I am always anxious, particularly in agricultural matters, to do what I can. Whatever arguments the hon. Gentleman may have had with me over policy on different occasions, he knows full well that I am always anxious to do something when the industry has been seriously affected by damage of this kind. But I should be out of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: The Minister must not drift into the merits of what might be discussed if the period of the Recess were extended or curtailed.

Mr. Peart: You are right, Sir. I must not discuss the merits. I was merely indicating some of my prejudices. I cannot promise specifically when, but I will convey the views which have been expressed by hon. Gentlemen to my right hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) raised the issue of Biafra and Nigeria. This is a very delicate matter. I cannot at this stage go beyond the statements which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs has made. Indeed, I should be out of order were I to do so.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of Czechoslovakia and expressed his concern lest something should happen during the Recess. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is concerned about this, and the matter is being watched. We must be very careful. This is a very delicate situation.
Then I was asked about Amendments to the Transport Bill, which are a matter for the Minister of Transport, and also about the question of Lords reform. The situation is still as the Prime Minister said; the situation has not changed.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) also had views on the delicate situation now in Czechoslovakia. I note his view that we shall convey to Lord Caradon, our representative at the United Nations, that this could be a threat to security and world peace, Obviously this is an important matter. I repeat again that the Foreign Secretary will take very careful note of what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: We are debating defence tomorrow. Would


the Leader of the House suggest to the Secretary of State for Defence that he might, perhaps, deal with this in the course of his speech tomorrow?

Mr. Peart: That may not be a debate in which it would be appropriate to discuss a matter of this kind. I think this is something which goes far beyond a defence debate as such. I will convey the views of the House to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Peter Bessell: May we expect a statement from the Foreign Secretary or some other member of the Government about the Czechoslovakian situation before the House rises?

Mr. Peart: I cannot be specific about that. I will consult the Foreign Secretary. If it is necessary to make one he will make one. On the other hand, sometimes statements and speeches do not help in a very delicate situation, and my advice often is that it is a good thing sometimes for Government and Opposition and back bench Members and myself to keep quiet and do it with dignity.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) also raised the question of Nigeria, but I have answered that. I note his views. He also talked about the Divorce Bill. I have explained why it has not been possible to have this; I have explained to many hon. Members and, indeed, to the sponsors of the Bill. This is something which they will have to think about when we have another Session.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) raised a very important matter affecting hotel development and incentives to the hotel industry. He quoted the White Paper which represented policy and he asked me whether I could get the President of the Board of Trade to make an early statement. Again, I will draw the views of the hon. Member to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) asked me many specific points and I should be out of order if I pursued them, as he will appreciate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He is not here. I will talk to him privately afterwards.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: That is not good enough, because we were all interested in what the hon. Member said while he was out of order and we should like to know.

Mr. Speaker: Order. At this late hour the hon. Member should not be so morbid.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) quite rightly pressed me on a matter on which I have given a reply to him. I know there is a desire for a debate on Scottish education —not just on this one point—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) stressed this very much, as, indeed, did other hon. Members, notably the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). I think this is an important matter. I think it is important to have a much wider debate, not just about this specific point regarding the Regulations affecting the teachers. I will note this and convey the hon. Member's views to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has quite grasped the point. The Statutory Instrument comes into operation on 1st August and it is really vital that we should have an opportunity to debate the Prayer against it before that date.

Mr. Peart: I am afraid that it is not possible to debate it this week or next —unless the hon. Member has his way and we do not adjourn—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]. I understand hon. Members, and they are perfectly at liberty to say they want to keep the House sitting, but I have announced the business, and I think the Motion sensible. I will, however, convey those views to my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) referred to a matter which also affects my constituency—the decision to close the Edinburgh-Carlisle line. He wants me to use my influence to get the Minister concerned to make a statement and not just to give a written reply. I am aware of the difficulties for many people in the area and I will have a word with my right hon. Friend. I cannot promise


success, but I will try. Hon. Members have asked me to raise these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) spoke about the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Edinburgh. As long as that is in the Recess, it could be considered. English hon. Members will recognise that our Scottish Friends want to work overtime. But I cannot promise it. The hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) raised a matter about anomalies under the Rent Act which I understand is being nvestigated. I cannot promise a statement about that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North made a strong plea for Scottish education, as she always does. I will consider her request very sympathetically.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), a fellow Gunner, talked about Gibraltar. The Constitutional Conference is going on. I hope that there will be no embarrassment for any of our negotiators. We all support our

Gibraltarian friends. His remarks, I thought, were a little unfair, but I do not want to become involved in the merits of the argument. He is right to emphasise the problem. He referred to Rhodesia. We have had several debates and statements about Rhodesia and the Prime Minister has answered Questions about it. The position is still as it is.

The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire asked about education, and I have dealt with that point. He spoke of the increase in S.E.T. and said that it will impose a heavy burden on the hotel keepers in Scotland. I assure him that I will represent his views to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Department concerned.

I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members have a good Recess when this Motion has been passed.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 33.

Division No. 288.]
AYES
[9.28 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Armstrong, Ernest
Faulds, Andrew
Loughlin, Charles


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fernyhough, E.
Lubbock, Eric


Baxter, William
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McBride, Neil


Beaney, Alan
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacColl, James


Bence, Cyril
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacDermot, Niall


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fowler, Gerry
Macdonald, A. H.


Bennett, Jamas (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Freeson, Reginald
McGuire, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Blackburn, F.
Gourlay, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, c.)


Boardman, H. (Leign)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Booth, Albert
Gregory, Arnold
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Manuel, Archie


Brooks, Edwin
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Maxwell, Robert


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, J. J.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamling, William
Millan, Bruce


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hannan, William
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Carmichael, Neil
Hattersley, Roy
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Coleman, Donald
Hazell, Bert
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Concannon, J. D.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Moyle, Roland


Conlan, Bernard
Henig, Stanley
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Murray, Albert


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hilton, W. S.
Newens, Stan


Dalyell, Tarn
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Orbach, Maurice


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Howie, W.
Orme, Stanley


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hoy, James
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hunter, Adam
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dell, Edmund
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dickens, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman


Dobson, Ray
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Doig, Peter
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Driberg, Torn
Kenyon, Clifford
Rees, Merlyn


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Richard, Ivor


Dunnett, Jack
Lawson, George
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, John (Reading)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ellis, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)




Silverman, Julius
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Slater, Joseph
Tinn, James
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Small, William
Urwin, T. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Snow, Julian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Woof, Robert


Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Yates, Victor


Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)



Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Swingler, Stephen
Weitzman, David
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Symonds, J. B.
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. Eric G. Varley.


Taverne, Dick






NOES


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Holland, Philip
Speed, Keith


Batsford, Brian
MacArthur, Ian
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Bessell, Peter
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Body, Richard
Maude, Angus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Corfield, F. V.
Percival, Ian
Wright, Esmond


Glover, Sir Douglas
Russell, Sir Ronald



Goodhew, Victor
Scott, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Raymond
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Peter Emery and


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Silvester, Frederick
Mr. Peter Mills.


Hirst, Geoffrey

Resolved,


That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Monday, 14th October.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — ECONOMIC SITUATION

Mr. Speaker: Before the first debate begins, I would remind the House that we are debating topics—each in turn. The first one out of the Ballot was the Economic Situation, and in a moment I shall call the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) to open the debate.
Any hon. Member who wishes to speak in this particular debate must intimate to the Chair that he wishes to do so. Sir Cyril Osborne.

9.36 p.m.

Sir Cyril Osborne: After the rather high drama and the sad debate on the Report of the Committee of Privileges and the rather kindergarten debate that has just ended, I should like to bring the House back to the problem of the earning of our daily bread. I want to ask a few pertinent questions about the real facts of our economic situation.
People outside the House are confused and mystified by the conflicting estimates of our economic situation that are given by different Ministers at different times. At one time we are told that we are facing bankruptcy, at another that everything is all right. The people would like to know the truth. I ask the Financial Secretary to tell us the facts. I hope that he will be able to give us answers that will help both sides and reassure people outside.
My first question is: is the country about bankrupt or is it facing an economic miracle? It cannot be doing both. Which statement is true of our situation? A few weeks ago, the Governor of the Bank of England was highly publicised as going round Europe seeking new and very big loans in order to bolster up sterling and save it from a second devaluation— to save Britain from welshing on her overseas debts. After a while, and some

great work, the Governor of the Bank of England came home with what is called the Basle agreement, a 2,000 million dollar standby agreement, in his pocket. There was an immense sigh of relief at his success.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Will the hon. Member—

Sir C. Osborne: No, I have only just started.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) does not give way, the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) must keep his seat.

Sir C. Osborne: I have been waiting six hours to make my speech and I have hardly started.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Start again. [Laughter.]

Sir C. Osborne: Hon. Members opposite may think that the economic situation is very amusing, but my constituents do not. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We begin the debate in the way we are going to continue it. We are not going to have a running commentary by the hon. Member for Feltham.

Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order. I do not wish to delay the debate in any way, but there is a difference between a loan and a standby arrangement. That is the only point I wished to make.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a Parliamentary way of making interventions, if the hon. Member who has the Floor gives way. Otherwise, they must keep quiet.

Sir C. Osborne: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. Neither the loan nor an agreement has yet been accepted. It has been only partially agreed. That pretended correction was, I think, out of place.
The seriousness of our situation was set out by theEconomist, in a leading article on 22nd June, when it said:
In the first quarter of 1968, the balance of monetary movements out of Britain was the worst ever recorded; in consequence, the country's total balance of payments deficit in the six months to March was running at the annual rate of £1,352 million compared with


£776 million which the wicked Tories left behind them in 1964.
The Economist went on:
To pile on the gloom, the monthly trade figures for May have shown the same deficit of £86 million as they did in April, which means that since that horrible first quarter the average visible trade deficit has actually got £21 million a month worse.
This is the position as seen by theEconomist.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): Will the hon. Member give the date?

Sir C. Osborne: Yes, I thought I gave the date. It was 26th June this year in a leading editorial.

Mr. Russell Kerr: In a leading Tory paper.

Sir C. Osbome: This statement by theEconomist justifies the Chancellor when he is at his gloomiest. It justifies him in saying that, no matter what opposition may arise either in this House or in the trade union movement against the prices and incomes policy, it must go through because of these facts. A very few weeks later we had the first welcome export figures. The June figures were a great improvement. Everyone in the House and in the country was delighted to see them.
The Prime Minister let them go to his head, as it were, for in the speech at Newton on 6th July he said, of the Tories:
They read the comments of expert and keen-eyed overseas observers. They have read the view objectively expressed that Britain is on the way to an economic miracle.
The Prime Minister was very careful not to say that he said this, but the very fact that he used the phrase in one of his key speeches and emphasised it showed that he would employ this if it ever came in useful to him and if circumstances justified it. If not, he would deny that he had said there was an economic miracle, but the newspapers took it up and most of the headlines said, "Economic Miracle: Prime Minister".
The Chancellor, on the one hand, has been telling us time after time—and I respect him for it—that we face a three-years' hard slog.

Mr. Harold Lever: Two years.

Sir C. Osborne: Well, a two years' hard slog—I would not wish to misrepresent the Chancellor—and this justifies the austerity which he unfortunately has to impose on the nation under the prices and incomes policy. On the other hand, the Prime Minister hints—he does not go so far as to say that it will happen—that an economic miracle is about to burst. They cannot both be right. Either one is over-painting the picture too darkly or the other is overpainting it too brightly.
My constituents and others outside ask which of those two Ministers is telling the truth. Whom can they trust, the Chancellor or the Prime Minister? As some of them say to me, "Are we in for a merry Christmas, the Prime Minister rather suggests, or will the kids' sweets have to be rationed, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather implies?"
If the Prime Minister is correct, and an economic miracle is just around the corner, my workers ask why the busmen's wage increase should not be granted when it has been agreed to by the municipalities and the trade unions have come to a productivity agreement to support it. If there is an economic miracle round the corner, why deny those men the wage increase which they feel that they have earned and are entitled to receive?
Others of my constituents who are in the seafaring world ask why the Prime Minister keeps British seamen's wages at the lowest level of any group of men in Europe doing a similar job. I find it hard to give them a reasonable and sensible reply. A housewife constituent said to me last week, "Why are the Government freezing my husband's wages and letting my grocery bills increase every weekend?" If there is an economic miracle round the corner, I would like to know from the Financial Secretary what satisfactory answer I can give. Whom are we to believe, the Chancellor, with his realism, or the Prime Minister, who paints the clouds with sunshine?
My second question is this. Exports for June were the best monthly figures we have seen for ages. They were welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House—

Mr. Robert Maxwell: Except by the Leader of the Opposition.

Sir C. Osborne: At least, I welcome them, and they are welcomed as much by the Stock Exchange as by the T.U.C Nobody wants to see our country go down. We all want to see it recover— sometimes, we say, "despite the Government". Those figures were extremely welcome.
We are, however, entitled to ask the Treasury for how many months or years those better export figures have to be achieved before Britain becomes solvent. Obviously, one month after the long series of depressing figures has not put us back into the black. We are still deeply in the red. I wonder whether the Treasury can give us an idea of the length of time for which those better figures have to be achieved month by month to make us solvent.
Does not the Treasury feel that too much ballyhoo was made of the last monthly figures? It engendered too much undue optimism that we were round the corner and that our troubles were all over. Is the Financial Secretary prepared to make a forecast of how exports are likely to go and what the gap between exports and imports will be during the remaining six months of this year? If we return to the bad figures, what little sterling balances are left will go. On the other hand, if we are to strengthen our financial position, it must be strengthened first by our exports. What, therefore, is the Treasury's forecast regarding exports in the next six months?
Third, the question of prices since devaluation. In reply to a Question from me about 10 days ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that average import prices have risen since devaluation by 11 per cent., but our average export prices have risen by only 5 per cent. Since we have to import 50 per cent. of our foodstuffs and about 90 per cent. of our raw materials, we are paying, on average, 11 per cent. more for all those imports, according to the Chancellor, we export roughly only 30 per cent. of what we manufacture and on that we are receiving only 5 per cent. more, is it not obvious that the more we export: the deeper we run into debt? [Laughter.] I do not know why my hon. Friend laughs.

Mr. Maxwell: Perhaps this will help the hon. Gentleman. Is he aware that

some imports carry an immense added value when they are re-exported by virtue of the skill and enterprise of British workers and management, so that £1 worth of imports may end up as £100 worth of exports?

Sir C. Osborne: That is true, but our 50 per cent. of imported foodstuffs are consumed here, not re-exported, and 70 per cent. of the raw materials we import are consumed here. My point is that any fool can give exports away or sell them at half price, as the hon. Gentleman should know from his personal experience; and he knows also that that is the way to Carey Street for an individual, for a firm or for a nation.
It is a serious question which I put to the Treasury. How long will the imbalance of prices continue? The Chancellor said 10 days ago that he hoped that it would not last much longer. But devaluation was eight months ago, and the 11 per cent. on imports is continuing, while we get only 5 per cent. extra on exports. That seems not to be helping us at all.
My fourth question follows a similar line. Last week, an important trade delegation came to this country from Libya. They went to see the President of the Board of Trade. They complained that, since devaluation, British prices had fallen by only 7 per cent. and they said that they would therefore not buy. Again, this was reported inThe Times and theFinancial Times, on Thursday last week, I think it was. I understand that we are the biggest buyers of Libyan oil. We obtain more of our Middle East oil from Libya than from any other source. We are having to pay Libya 11 per cent. more for the oil she supplies to us, and she complains that we have dropped our prices by only 7 per cent.
If, in this case, we are paying 11 per cent. more for what Libya sells to us, and Libya is buying from us at 7 per cent. less, I cannot see how this will help us in our financial difficulties. It may provide more physical work, it may make the economic machine work better though less profitably, but it will not help us with our balance of payments.
What exactly is our financial position? I understand that last year the adverse balance of payments was about £540 million. The Chancellor has said that he


wants a surplus balance of payments of £500 million a year to build up his reserves. Therefore, we must earn an extra £540 million a year to make ourselves square, and he wants another £500 million a year in the kitty as well.
Last week theEconomist—the House will realise that I am a keen reader of theEconomist—estimated that our overseas debts amounted to 6·7 billion dollars, and they are repayable by 1973. If we are to repay those debts and not welsh on our obligations, that means another £500 million a year. Are my calculations correct? If they are, we as a nation must earn £1,500 million a year more than in 1967 and pay ourselves not a farthing extra for doing so, not consuming the extra personally or by Government, local or national. That is the real size of the problem.
If my calculations are right, should not the Treasury tell the nation? Does not this mean that the prices and incomes policy and wages freeze will be with us for as long ahead as we can see—at least 10 years? These are the truths that our people should be told.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of discourtesy if I remind him that he is the first speaker in the first of 28 debates that we hope to have tonight.

Sir C. Osborne: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I thought that I was very lucky when I drew the position of first speaker in the Ballot. I hoped to be able to say my piece at about 3.30 p.m., and I have sat here pregnantly since then. I beg you to let me finish, Mr. Speaker. If you say that I have gone too long I shall sit down.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I will say it.

Sir C. Osborne: The hon. Gentleman is not the Speaker yet. I shall curtail my speech as much as I can.
Does the Basle standby agreement for 2,000 million dollars mean that we have converted a soft currency undated debt into a hard currency dated debt? Have we guaranteed that the money will be repaid in either dollars or gold? If so, and the dollar is devalued and the price of gold is put up to 70 dollars an ounce, will not that double our liability, and

should not we tell the people the price we are paying for this standby arrangement?
I calculate that our overseas liabilities in sterling amount to £5,900 million. We have already guaranteed to the remaining holders of sterling in Hong Kong that they will not suffer by a second devaluation. Have we given similar guarantees to other holders of sterling? If so, what is the liability involved?
After two more questions I will sit down, Mr. Speaker. TheEconomist estimated—this is the most serious figure of the lot—that the adverse balance of payments for the six months to March, 1968, was running at the rate of £1,352 million. If that is a correct estimate, it is a terrifying load on our people.
Lastly, all hon. Members on both sides must have been worried by the last figures of employment and the fact that they are the highest for the last 30 years. More than 580,000 men are completely and permanently unemployed. Over the year from May, 1967, industrial production increased by 4½ per cent. and industrial employment dropped by 1·7 per cent. Industrial productivity increased by 6 per cent., but unemployment within industry dropped by 7 per cent.
If the Prime Minister's policy of July, 1966, is to succeed and we are to redeploy our labour and use it more efficiently, does not this mean that we shall create more and more unemployment? What plans have the Government to find jobs for the men who are being deliberately put out of work by the Government's policy?
There are many more questions that I should have liked to ask, but with that I sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House seriously, and may again do so from time to time during the evening, that we have 28 debates ahead of us, and that if each lasts even one hour we shall be here till somewhere towards the end of the week.

10.2 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I shall be as brief as I can, Mr. Speaker. I want to put a few questions to the Financial Secretary about the standby loans.
What concerns me is that after the first meeting in Basle was completed the Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Leslie O'Brien, made a statement at the airport, and that was followed up in the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we have heard nothing from the meeting as such. Those were the only individuals who referred to the meeting. There ought to have been an agreed statement by the central banks about what took place or what progress had been made up to that date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) referred to the negotiations as being completed. They are far from completed. The discussions will go on with Commonwealth countries until well into September.
I hope that everybody in the country will realise that, while the standby loans are necessary, if we draw on them interest has to be paid and at the end of 10 years we have to pay back the capital. We are not getting something for nothing from the central bankers. We never do. The funds cannot be used for any trade deficits in the monthly payments. They are for a specific purpose. We should realise that it is a tragedy that the country has had to borrow, or even contemplate borrowing, such large sums of money.
The Government are in trouble. There is no doubt about it. They are getting the House up at the earliest date that I can remember for 23 years—a week before the House of Lords, whose Members are not paid to do their job. We know why the House is going into recess the day after tomorrow. The Government want to get us out of the way. But that is not the matter—

Mr. Speaker: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will come to the topic that he is supposed to be discussing.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I am just coming on to that, Mr. Speaker.
I say that the Government are in trouble, and so is the country and every person in it. We all know what has happened during the four years since October, 1964. The Government inherited a problem, but it was not a crisis. They turned it into a crisis. It all culminated in the devaluation of the pound in November last year. The Prime Minister should have gone on television and

made a different speech; he should have told the people "This is it", and admitted the mistakes and said, "We shall take rigid controls tomorrow, if necessary, dealing with the regulator, hire purchase, and so on", and brought it home to the people that the situation was serious. But he did not do that.
It was left to the Chancellor to bring in his Budget, which has begun to bite only during the last few weeks. We have had a boom in industry over the last six or eight months, one of the biggest booms since the end of the war. When we ought to have been selling motor cars abroad, they have been sold on the home market. This was a big tragedy and has set us back enormously. I imagine that the Government did not do what they ought to have done because they were afraid that the unemployment figures would go up during the winter months. Now the country will begin to pay the price.
Prices have risen since devaluation by nearly 4 per cent. In September the doubled Selective Employment Tax is bound to affect the cost of building, transport and many other items, and this, in turn, will increase the price of our exports. Confidence is missing, not only in Britain but overseas. So often have the Government broken their word that people are not prepared to trust them. Our E.F.T.A. partners are dismayed, particularly in view of the 15 per cent. surcharge. The Government gave about nine months' notice that the import tax would be taken off. Now we could use this tax to help us out of the present situation by limiting imports.
I remember the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) saying that the Government would be on trial for three months. He warned that if the Prime Minister's predictions about the upturn of industry did not work out, their economic strategy would have to be scrapped. I have not heard the hon. Gentleman speak recently. He is not even in his place. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Did the hon. Member give him notice?"] I admit that I did not give him notice that I would mention him.
Many foreigners believe that we in Britain are not prepared to tighten our belts. I do not have that impression


as a result of my discussions with people in factories and workshops. They are doing a decent job of work, but they are not getting the right lead from the Government. While 60,000 additional civil servants are occupying millions of feet of office space industry is being asked to put a fine comb through its organisation, rationalise and reduce staff.
The week following devaluation the Transport Bill was introduced. That did not impress the foreign bankers who were wondering whether the Government intended to continue pursuing socialist policies. I appreciate that the Labour Party came to power with a mandate to do most of the things that it has done, but when the country was going through a desperate crisis the Prime Minister should have said that a brake would be put on all controversial legislation for six or eight months.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the Consolidated Fund Bill. We can debate errors of administration in the Government. We cannot debate the necessity to get rid of legislation of which he disapproves.

Sir A. V. Harvey: If the Government would face up to these problems they could do a lot to alleviate the position. Consumer spending is now 10 per cent. higher than it was last year. It is beginning to tail off, but this trend is too late in arriving. The regulator should have been used at the right time and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was appointed shortly after devaluation, must accept full responsibility for that, although the Prime Minister said that he was the overlord.
Spending is still too high. People have no confidence in sterling. Whether it be motor cars, or pictures, or cases of liquor, people are putting their money into anything rather than savings. I want to see the Government doing something to encourage savings. Much could be done to get people to put their money aside—for example, through special interest rates, bonuses or reduced taxation.
I congratulate our exporters. Many of them are doing a wonderful job. But the import figure is still dangerously high. It has fallen a little but there is nothing to

crow about with a deficit of £50 million in one month, even if it is better than a deficit of £96 million in a month. We have a long way to go to improve on the situation, and we must improve on it.
Many items and materials imported could be avoided. We are told that it would be wrong to have import control. I myself think that it would be wrong and would not help. But are the Government considering deposits being called for when imports are ordered? I recognise that it is a complicated matter and that other nations might introduce similar provisions. But these matters should be gone into because unless the import bill is reduced considerably, I cannot see an answer to our problems since, eight or nine months after devaluation, we are paying far more for our imports than before.
I do not want to impinge on the debate on unemployment to be initiated by the hon. Member fof Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), but that subject, also, is wrapped up in this debate. We have 500,000 unemployed in July and the trend has been going that way for five months. From next month onwards, it must increase considerably. It is no way to run the country to have 500,000 unemployed in July. Hon. Members opposite attacked the Conservative Government year after year, but the figures were nothing like this.
The Government have run out of time. They have lost the confidence of the people. We saw that in Wales last week. They have also lost the confidence of the foreigners. Last week, the Labour Party got one of the biggest hidings that it has had for many years. No hon. Member opposite is safe in his seat today. Their sins will find them out as soon as they go to the country.

10.14 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) for having chosen this subject for debate and also for being fortunate enough to gain first place in the Ballot. I only wish that a subject of this importance had begun to be debated at 3.30 p.m. rather than at this time of night. It is perhaps the most important subject the House is likely to debate during the lifetime of this Parliament.
I do not want to be as depressing as my hon. Friend. I believe that the country will overcome its problems. In some ways, I believe that it is tackling them and that the situation is showing signs of improvement. But I do not think that any statesman did a greater disservice to the nation—and I sympathise with him— than the Prime Minister did in his broadcast to the nation the day after devaluation. Being human, I understand the pressures on him at that moment, but from that point on he made the task of his Ministers and the nation doubly difficult in overcoming the problems brought about by devaluation.
Devaluation was a great defeat for the country and its economic policies over a good number of years. To present it to the nation as something of triumph was the most disgraceful distortion of the facts to which this nation has ever listened on television. It has doubled our problems. First of all, when one devalues one's currency it may take months or years to work through. Money is like water in a cistern. It does not change, and one does not have two values, one at home and one abroad. If our £ is worth 17s. 5d. abroad compared with its value in November last year, before devaluation, it will eventually be worth 17s. 5d. at home. That is why there is this constant rising of prices.
A Government that really believed in the future of the nation and was not concerned with party political popularity would hammer this fact home to the nation, day after day. It is an inevitable consequence of the action that we were forced to take last November. I receive letters in shoals from my constituents asking what the Government intend to do about rising prices. The Government cannot do anything, because by the very fact of the devaluation, by their policies, they made it absolutely certain that nearly all prices would automatically and inevitably increase therefore reducing the standard of living.
The second reason why I criticise the Government is that there was no campaign to alert the nation to the fact that immediately after devaluation we were bound, for some months, to have disastrous trade figures. The Government ought to have been hammering this home. Why? Because when one devalues

one's currency, admittedly one makes it cheaper to sell one's goods abroad, but at the moment of devaluation one's order books are empty and it will take six, nine or 12 months for orders to come in, to go through factories, and to be shipped overseas and sold.
Imports immediately go up in price, and for the first six or nine months the import Bill is immediately increased, while one's exports slowly and surely overtake that rise. The last month has shown that there is a tendency, a movement in the right direction with our exports. I hope and believe that we shall produce better figures in the autumn and early next year. The Government should have been alerting the nation to thinking that it is facing a siege economy.
Any Government with any sort of appreciation, and the party opposite is supposed to be full of economists, would have been aware of this. To allow, under these conditions, a consumer boom, to encourage it, was criminal irresponsibility. It meant that it was far more difficult to export goods, because each factory is concerned, has to be concerned, with its profitability, and if there is a streaming list of customers representing home consumption, outside the factory door, the inevitable result is that less goods are produced for export than would be the case if conditions at home were more stringent and difficult.
Last month, our trade figures showed a deficit, although they were a big improvement on the figures for previous months. What our situation would be if it were not for our overseas investments I shudder to think. Only our overseas investments, our invisible earnings, and the activities of the City of London have kept the ship, although waterlogged, afloat.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Drivel.

Sir D. Glover: It is not drivel; it is true.
Our visible trade deficit is colossal, and it is reduced, albeit to still terrifying proportions, because of our invisible earnings. Were it not for them, our position today would be even more serious than it is.

Mr. Orme: That is not true.

Sir D. Glover: Although there are signs that we are moving in the right direction, the thing which worries me is whether we are moving at anything like the speed necessary to overcome the problems which face the nation. Suppose that our exports increase in the next six or nine months. They must increase at a far more rapid rate than they have shown signs of increasing to achieve anything like the surplus for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer budgeted. I cannot see us getting anything like a £500 million surplus in any consecutive 12 months starting in 1969. This would mean an enormous increase compared with anything that we have the right to expect.
Therefore, the Government must do something drastic about our imports, if only for a temporary period. They should consider some system whereby consumer and manufactured goods are paid for at a much earlier date before delivery, because many of them are bought on credit. As a free enterpriser, I am a great believer in the credit necessary for all international trade. What I am worried about is that, although the trend in exports is

going in the right direction, I do not see how they will reach anything like the figure needed in the time span before international confidence once again begins to shake in considering whether Britain is overcoming its problems. Therefore, the Government must consider the problem of our import bill, if only during the next 12 or 18 months.
This would bring the problem which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is to discuss in our next debate—unemployment. It is not any part of my task to solve every one of our problems. The Government's misguided policy, the double-think and double-talk, and the bad leadership which they have given the nation have created the problem. Therefore, in the long run, it is far more important, even for those out of work, that we overcome our economic problems that it is to arrive at a short-term solution which will lead to greater problems in six or nine months. For the reasons I have given, the Government are condemned out of hand, and they should resign.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I do not intend to detain the House for long, particularly as the debate started very late and as there are many other subjects, as you have reminded us, Sir, to be debated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) put a number of very pertinent questions to the Financial Secretary. I have no intention of following my hon. Friend on all those. I have no doubt that the Financial Secretary will do his best to answer them. I shall concentrate on two of the topics which all those who have spoken tonight have mentioned—one being the progress of the balance; of payments, and the other being the prospects for sterling and the state of Basle negotiations.
I would in a debate of this sort have wished to have dwelt on a third, namely, the disturbingly high level of unemployment, but as this will be the subject of the next debate I will eschew that altogether.
I will make one general prefatory remark before turning to the two subjects on which I shall concentrate. Since devaluation last November, the economic picture until quite recently has been one of almost unrelieved gloom. It was abundantly clear that the Government's strategy was not working or, if it was working, was working very much more slowly than they had indicated. The consumer spending spree, which lasted well into the middle of the year, rapidly undid any of the good which the cuts announced on 16th January may have done. Our import bill continued to soar and exports showed little sign of the upturn which the Government appeared to expect would follow devaluation.
Meanwhile, sterling remained weak. Indeed, the £ was bumping along at the very margin of the official limits. There was a continued outflow of money from London as the sterling balances trickled away due, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) so rightly said, principally to a continued failure of confidence. This remained at a very low ebb.
Accordingly, we had a Budget of unprecedented severity introduced in an

atmosphere of crisis following upon the gold speculation and the Washington talks. The fear at that time and for some weeks thereafter was of a collapse of the whole international monetary system, with the most appalling impact on world trade had it happened.
Since then there have been a few events which make the situation look a little brighter. Perhaps the most important— this may surprise hon. Members opposite —has been that, contrary to expectations, the American Congress accepted the tax increase and that immediately has relieved pressure on the dollar. The dollar is the dominating currency in world trade. I believe that this has been the most helpful event.
There has been the Stockholm Agreement on the special drawing rights, the announcement of the Basle negotiations and the general direction which they were taking, and, finally, the June trade figures. All these are useful and welcome signs of an improvement in our economic situation. These do not—certainly not separately; indeed, not collectively— warrant the exaggerated cries of optimism which appear to have been aroused in some quarters.
It is a measure of the depth of pessimism in which we have been wallowing that we have become so inured to it that, at the first flicker of a swallow's wing portending the summer, voices— indeed, responsible voices—have been heard proclaiming that economic salvation is just round the corner. Loose talk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth reminded us, of an "economic miracle" on the part of the Prime Minister is no less dangerous than continued irresolution and failure to grapple with the situation.
One of the few consistent paths trodden by the previous Chancellor, the present Home Secretary, was his tendency always to be too optimistc about prospects. Some of the Ministerial reactions to these recent events which I have mentioned make it apparent that the same temptation to make over-optimistic assumptions exist.
The attitude of this side of the House is perfectly clear. We welcome any sign that there is an improvement in our


economic situation. There are the improved trade figures and the return of confidence in the £. We welcome the fact that money is beginning to trickle back into London. These things are good for Britain, but I would emphasise that they are not by themselves the salvation of our economy. Still less would I accept any criticism that pointing out that these things are not our salvation amounts to a lack of patriotism on the part of those who make these statements.
I now turn to imports and the balance of trade. The June figures show that imports, seasonally adjusted, were £616 million compared with an average for the previous four months of over £650 million. Therefore, it was a source of great relief that the upward trend in 1968 was no longer being sustained.
I would make two points about this. First, the improvement is a very limited one. The figure of £616 million is only £1 million less than the January figure for imports, which was £617 million. Indeed, if one takes the first six months of 1968 and compares them with a comparable period in 1967, imports have been running at an average monthly rate of £120 million higher than in the previous year. Even in June, the improved figure still left a crude trade gap of £50 million for the month. Though there has been an improvement, we are most emphatically not yet out of the wood.
The second point about imports is that the figures for the first six months show that there was a hump—a fairly steep rise and then in June a decline. This directly reflects the post-devaluation spending spree which became such a notorious feature of the results of the Government's policy after devaluation. We can now see abundantly clearly the extremely damaging effect which the Government's refusal to take immediate action following devaluation had on the economy. There is no doubt that the processes which the Government ought to have set in train following devaluation were delayed and that this has correspondingly delayed the correction of the balance of payments deficit, which was the only possible benefit that could have flown from devaluation.
The June figures, as I say, may only be a single swallow in the summer, and not too much emphasis should be placed upon them. Therefore, we must await the July figures. If the improvement is sustained, it will be a welcome sign that we are moving towards economic solvency. But if the improvement is not sustained, I believe that very serious questions will arise whether the Government will or will not have to take further measures.
The Government have rightly, in my view, ruled out any question of a return to import controls. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), in suggesting as a possible alternative a prior deposit scheme, or something of that sort, was also ruling out import controls in the sense of quota controls. I believe that the Government would be absolutely right to resist the pressures which come from many quarters to introduce controls. The usual argument is that we would be subject to retaliation if we did, and this is certainly a valid argument. But I would remind the House that there is an even more important argument: that it would directly conflict with our long term objective of making our economy more competitive. Import controls inevitably amount to protection of our indigenous industry. The 15 per cent. temporary charge on imports undoubtedly had that effect. It was good that it was removed when it was. Any form of quota controls would be even more so.
I turn now to exports, because our balance of trade depends also on exports. These have risen, but by nothing like as much as the Government would have hoped, and the long delay to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk referred is certainly taking a very serious form. I cannot believe that, taking the prospects for imports and exports together, the Government can now seriously be expecting a surplus in the second half of the year. Indeed, as a number of my hon. Friends have said, the prospects of their achieving a £500 million surplus next year must now appear very remote indeed. No doubt the Financial Secretary will give us some idea of the Government's thinking on these lines. I beg him to speak frankly and tell the country the truth. It is better that we know the truth than


that we continue to be fed on a pap of optimism which is of no value to anybody.
I think it is significant that every one of my hon. Friends who has spoken during this brief debate has mentioned the Basle discussions. These and the discussions which are going on in the sterling area with the overseas sterling area countries have serious implications indeed. These negotiations both at Basle and with the overseas sterling area are in progress and I do not want to say anything to embarrass the Government in the course of these talks. We welcome the evidence of what these negotiations represent in terms of international cooperation, and undoubtedly they will help to relieve the short-term pressures on sterling, but I think that it is right to look at the wider implications.
The object of the whole exercise appears to be to reassure the overseas sterling area relative to their balances which they hold in London. The effect of the agreement which is under negotiation appears to be giving either a gold guarantee or a dollar guarantee for a first tranche of the sterling balances. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth asked the Financial Secretary whether he would say anything about that yet. Obviously there is a great difference whether it is a gold or dollar guarantee. This country has a right to know at the earliest possible opportunity.
The House will remember that on 8th July my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), who is a notable expert in these highly technical matters, suggested, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement about the discussions which were taking place with the Bank for International Settlements, that
the successful outcome of these negotiations will only have the effect that the sterling balances will pass from creditors over whom we have some measure of control, into the hands of creditors over whom we shall have no control whatsoever."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1968; Vol. 768, c. 50.]
Can the Financial Secretary comment on that? Whether it is a gold or a dollar guarantee that is intended, is that a not unreasonable description of the effect of these negotiations? Is it not the case that once again we are buying a short-term relief from the pressure on sterling

at the risk of making our long-term position substantially more difficult?
Secondly, is it a fact that different terms are now being offered to different countries in the overseas sterling area on the basis of which they will get the guarantee represented by the Basle agreement? Is it the case that stiffer terms will be offered to those smaller, weaker countries which are not in a position to resist them, and rather more generous terms will be offered to the stronger, more developed countries which are in a position to call the tune? I must warn the Government that any attempt to discriminate between countries in the sterling area has the gravest implications for the future of the sterling system as a whole. While one must draw a distinction between the reserve rôle of sterling, and the rôle of sterling as a trading currency, it is right to point out that these are not entirely unrelated. I plead with the Government to tread most warily.
The Government do not need to be reminded that, over the major proportion of past years, when we have had a balance of payments surplus it has been achieved by invisible earnings. We have achieved a credit on the visible account only seven times in the last 150 years. It has been our invisible account which has put us in credit and allowed us to build up our enormous overseas assets. If we damage the sterling area by taking short-term measures to relieve ourselves from a short-term crisis and if the result is to damage our invisible earnings, the harm done will be serious and irretrievable.
Devaluation represented for the Government a radical departure from the economic strategy which the country had followed for the previous 20 years. There are many penalties and disadvantages attached to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth spelt them out in stark terms. But the one advantage which we might reasonably hope to gain is that for the first time since the war we shall be able to move into an export-led expansion. I agree with theLondon and Cambridge Economic Bulletin which said:
It is clearly much too early to assess how the new strategy is working.
If anybody wants a reason—that is the reason why we felt it right not to press for a full-scale economic debate at this stage. It is much too early to assess


how the new strategy is working. Nevertheless, this brief debate has given an opportunity to a number of hon. Members on this side of the House to ask questions of the Financial Secretary and an opportunity for him to answer them. I hope that he will take full advantage of it, and be as frank with the House and the country as he can.

10.42 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I am sure that the House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) for having chosen this subject and also for the way in which he presented it— and, in general, for the questioning, information-seeking approach that he has shown throughout, which is in somewhat agreeable contrast to the demagogic ebullience of some of his right hon. Friends in their addresses on this subject elsewhere. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) for the moderate and reasoned nature of his speech. I am grateful, too, that he recognises that it would be premature to pass any sort of final judgment on the way in which the Government's economic strategy is working. I wish that he would draw that fact to the attention of some of his right hon. Friends before they venture down upon the City in bouts of well-calculated pessimism.
For those reasons I prefer the approach of the hon. Member for Louth. Admittedly he is confused and mystified, but he obviously takes more account of his leader's speeches than most people of consequence at home and abroad. Perhaps when I have finished my explanation he will see the matter in better perspective.
It is no part of my argument to suggest that the Government, the country and the people have not very serious problems to face—both economic and monetary. Over the last three years we have run an aggregate deficit on current account, excluding investment account, totalling £655 million. That has had to be met by borrowing, just as the £400 million in the year previous was met by borrowing by the Government then in power. I am not going to indulge in the ludicrous and naive cross-talk

which immediately and directly attributes a balance of payments surplus or deficit for the year in question to the Government in power in the year in question; we have to make a more realistic survey, over a fair period of time, of what the problems are and how the Government of the day are facing them.
I want to get some facts into perspective. A serious problem is represented by the fact that in the last three years— 1965, 1966 and 1967—we have been unable to move our current account into surplus. This has caused an increase in our net indebtedness of £655 million.
There were other monetary movements, some of them very considerable, in the same period, but none of those represented any addition to net indebtedness in any real economic sense or any real financial sense. They represented either money borrowed in order to enable us to finance new investment acquired abroad, or they represented money borrowed in order to pay off existing creditors who were asking for the repayment of their money.
So all this dangling of neurotic large-scale figures before the public is utterly beside the point. We have the real enough problem that in the last three years we have had an aggregate current deficit of £655 million which, together with the deficit of 1964 under the previous Government, totalled something over £1,050 million of net additional debt incurred in the last four years by the British people as a whole and the British economy as a whole. That has very unfortunate monetary consequences, especially in a world troubled by monetary instability, but do let us keep it all in proportion.
It is by no means a state of affairs that entitles anyone to talk about the country being a bankrupt country. I should like, without any intention of encouraging false optimism or belittling the magnitude of our problems, to point out that though in the four years—including the year of Tory Government— we have added to our net indebtedness by about £1,050 million, it is absolutely certain that our assets abroad in that period have increased in value by a considerably greater amount than £1,050 million—

Mr. James Dickens: Would my hon. Friend agree that serious as this deficit on current account is, it is rather less over the four years in question than the foreign exchange costs of overseas military spending, and of private investment chiefly in advanced industrial countries?

Mr. Lever: I can give the answer to that question in one simple figure. If in 1965, 1966 and 1967 we had had no Government defence or aid expenditure, we would have run, in those exceedingly difficult years, a surplus on current account of £700 million.
Let it not be said that I agree with any argument that suggests that we should have given up aid or that we should have abandoned our defences during that period. There is nothing in recent events that encourages me to believe that defencelessness is an agreeable situation in which to find oneself. I hope that hon. Members will be realistic enough to know that one had to make adequate defence provision in the situation thai followed the war. I do not complain of the criticism about the amount and style, but the idea that we wasted money on defence because no-one attacked us or had no manoeuvres on our borders while we discussed our political problems does not seem to me to be an argument of great cogency.
The fact remains that a nation that ran a surplus, before it discharged what it considered to be its defence and aid obligations in the world, of £700 million in the last three years, can hardly be described as a bankrupt nation, unless one wants to say that in the discharge of those obligations we were guilty of great folly because if we were bankrupt we had no right to take on aid obligations or defence obligations. But, of course, I absolutely reject the suggestion that it would have been right to abandon either.

Sir C. Osborne: Would the Financial Secretary be good enough to break down that £700 million surplus, and say what was for defence and what was for aid?

Mr. Lever: I have the figures, but I do not think that the House would appreciate anything that would inevitably turn the debate into a statistical lecture. I would rather concentrate on the main figures that I have given. There

we have a very real problem, and because of the nature of the monetary system and of our own United Kingdom sterling monetary system, these deficits, amounting in 1965, 1966 and 1967—and with the deficit of the previous year—to over £1,000 million, accompanied by monetary movements within the monetary system within which we work, a world monetary system that was far from safe, perfect and stable, presented real problems to our people. I do not want to minimise them or to encourage any kind of euphoria about them.
The first thing is that the net indebtedness of this country has not grown by the astronomical figures which are constantly quoted at us. Nor has account been taken in the course of these pessimistic monologues of the vast increase in our assets abroad which has taken place during the same period, which undoubtedly must be considerably more than the increase in our net indebtedness.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Do the hon. Gentleman's figures take into account the increase in the pre-devaluation indebtedness expressed in terms of overseas currency with the obligations in terms of overseas currency and the increase which was attributable to the fact of devaluation itself?

Mr. Lever: These figures are a broad summary of the actual facts of the nation's position which derive from the shortfall in earnings in the last three years. They are entirely accurate and represent the true economic circumstances. Serious problem as it is, it is not adding in a gigantic way to the net indebtedness of the country.
So far as concerns devaluation I do not want to be steered off into a vast mass of technical computation, but I will give a sentence on this. In terms of liabilities abroad, it reduced sterling liabilities in international terms. On the other hand, it caused a rather lesser sum on forward account losses, but this does not alter in any fundamental way the character of the sum I have mentioned.
The Basle Agreement has caused a great deal of comment. What I say about it will be candid and frank, but I cannot undertake to tell the House the details of the negotiations which are going on at present with the sterling area


countries. I thought the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford was below his usual form in, as it were, speculating on an offensive hypothesis without any evidence which is justified and hoping that I would repudiate it. First, I should like to know what evidence he has for supposing that this or any British Government would bully weaker members of the sterling area by giving them adverse treatment compared with stronger members of the sterling area. I do not know if that is the experience he thinks other Governments have had, but it is nothing to do with what is going on at present.
On the Basle Agreement I have been asked to comment on the suggestion, which was perhaps best put by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), that the agreement will result in our taking on a dated dollar debt whereas before we had an undated soft currency sterling debt. The Basle Agreement will do nothing of the kind. The Basle Agreement is a standby agreement. It comes into operation only when a sterling balance holder wants his money. At the time when a sterling balance holder wants his money, that is not a sterling debt; it is an external sterling debt. That is to say, the money he wants is in any currency in the world he chooses to specify, usually dollars. It is not a loan. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) was quite correct, it is a standby credit which would work in a see-saw fashion and there is no increase in indebtedness if the standby is taken, but sterling indebtedness is less. The hon. Member for Walsall, South, who is usually very knowledgeable on these things, got it completely wrong in supposing that we are turning a soft currency debt into a hard currency debt. We operate the Basle Agreement only as a standby. Only when repayment is due and payable in dollars or other currency does it operate. Therefore, what really happens is that we are turning what will be an immediately payable hard currency debt into a deferred payable hard currency debt.
The hon. Member said that we were changing creditors. The first thing to be said about that is that it is not at our option. It is the creditor deciding that he wants to be paid. The hon.

Member for Walsall, South may regret it, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford may regret it, but the fact remains that one of the duties to one's creditor is to pay him his money when he wants it back. This money is on short call and is liable to be repaid whenever asked for.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the Basle Agreement, but is the purport of what he has said that we have not reached any completed agreement—I am not asking about any negotiations which are in progress—about existing sterling debt to a sterling area country being repayable at a rate of exchange fixed now?

Sir A. V. Harvey: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, may I question his references to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid)? I have not seen my hon. Friend for four or five hours. I do not know to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Mr. Lever: The hon. Member for Walsall, South was quoted in his absence with a degree of reverence which is well justified by his experience in this matter. Even his absence is effective in argument and has to be answered. I have answered it. I am putting out that if and when, as we all hope, the Basle Agreement comes into operation, it will not transfer a soft currency debt to a hard currency debt. It will be a hard currency debt immediately payable, transmitted to the international lender who lends it for a period of years.
I have been asked the reason for changing our creditor. It was not the British Government who chose to change the creditor. It is the creditor who desired to be repaid. Hon. Members should know that in the ebb and flow of international events, in the uncertainties, switches and changes, no country, however strong or well governed, if immune from a creditor's request to have his money repaid.
Devaluation must have been a shock to many sterling area countries. I am not making any comment or complaint about this. If any of them want their money, it is perfectly within their rights


and it would be entirely a breach of their rights for us to refuse it. But for goodness sake let us get the agreement right and bear in mind that the sterling area debts with which we are dealing derive not from the incompetence of the Government, or even the incompetence of the previous Government, but from the last war. They are the price we paid in emerging victorious from the last war. However changed about in their ownership, they represent a deadweight of debt which was saddled on the Government of Britain in 1945 and which has continued at broadly the same level ever since.
The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) asked whether we have reached any final agreement. No, we have not. It has been clearly stated that the Basle discussions were concluded and thereafter there were to be consultations with the sterling area. Nobody has suggested that any agreement has been reached. When an agreement is reached, of course the House will be properly informed.
I shall not waste time at this late hour giving a summary again of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said about the Basle arrangements as proposed. What my right hon. Friend said stands. It is obvious that the next stage will be the completion of consultations with the sterling area. If any agreements are reached, no doubt the House will be immediately informed.
I have dealt so far as I can with the monetary situation, and with complete candour, because it is nonsense to talk about the Basle Agreement as adding in any form to our net debt. I will deal in a sentence with the questions raised by the hon. Member for Louth on the export-import situation. The hon. Member said that import prices have gone up and that export prices have not gone up as fast. Everybody knew that this would happen. It is one of the debit sides of devaluation. The credit side comes later. There is no doubt that the export prices will tend to improve and that the import quantities will tend to come down. At what pace exactly, I cannot say. The hon. Gentleman is anxious that I should engage in the hazardous task of forecasting. I must decline the invitation. I notice

that he does not give any forecast himself. I do not see why he should expect me to be able to predict every ebb and whirlpool of world trade in the months ahead.
All I can say is that I am absolutely satisfied that we are moving in the right direction, and that we shall move from a deficit on our balance of payments to a surplus. This is not optimism derived from the last month's figures. Hon. Members will recall that when I had the privilege of addressing the House well before these figures were known, I made the same statement. I am happy to see some evidence in support of it in the July figures. I entirely agree that we cannot count on one month's performance. We must watch the situation in the months ahead. But I am sure that the Government's policy is right and that it will produce the right results.
On the question of getting the debit side of devaluation at the beginning in the way we have discussed and collecting the credit side only if we preserve the necessary self-disciplines which enable the export drive to go ahead, drawing in the labour and material which will make it successful, this is what the Government are determined to achieve, and it is what they will achieve. That is why I say that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point of the recent speeches of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Perhaps I ought to mentionen passant that, although much is said about the £50 million deficit figure of the last month, it ought to be borne in mind that when that figure falls from 50 to nothing we shall be not just square but well in front. The £50 million is not the extent of the current deficit last month. In fact, it does not take into account the net balance on invisible payments. By the time we have our deficit down to zero from the £50 million and our visible trade figures in balance, we shall be running a handsome current surplus. The gap is still large. It still requires immense effort, but it is not a terrifying or intimidating task for the British people.
There is nothing inconsistent between what the Chancellor said and what the Prime Minister said. If the hon. Member for Louth will read the Prime Minister's


speech in full and the Chancellor's speech, he will see that it all adds up to this simple proposition. Yes, we have two years of hard slog—hard slog, let it be said, with the highest standard of life that the British people have so far ever enjoyed, hard slog with the highest level of social services that the British people have ever enjoyed, but nevertheless hard slog. No one is keener than I am that the expectations which my hon. Friends express for a rising standing of life and rising social services should be justified. But the hard slog is there, and the economic miracle is showing signs of appearing.
What is the economic miracle?—that for the first time we are looking forward to seeing in 1969 a Britain expanding at a rate of production well above what was the average for the years of Tory rule, and doing so with a surplus on our balance of payments. I shall not predict what the surplus will be, but that there will be a surplus and that we shall be expanding, and expanding steadily, I am prepared to predict. I am confident that that will happen, given no major untoward event at home or abroad.
I cannot guarantee to the groaners that there will not be a world war or a big recession in America or South America, but granted the existing out-turn in world trade, as seems probable, and in European trade, as seems probable, I am satisfied that in the next year we shall see what has never before been achieved in the whole 23 years since the war, that is, a rapidly expanding British production accompanied by a surplus on the balance of payments.
When the Prime Minister talked about an economic miracle, he never left any doubt about who will perform it. It will be performed not by the act of a kindly Providence but by the efforts, self-discipline, energy and talent of the British people. It is we ourselves who will bring about that miracle. What is more, we shall do it against a much stabler sterling area system than there has ever been in the 23 years since the war, the absence of which has so much magnified our problems and bedevilled all our economic planning in an endeavour to bring about the situation I have hopefully described for 1969. I do not mini-

mise the effort that must be made to bring this about, but I confidently see the possibility of its achievement if the Government's policies are firmly supported.
Therefore, I see two years of hard slog, that success of our balance of payments, an expanding production, and then the opportunity to ensure a rising standard of life and rising social services for our people on the most solid basis seen ever since the war.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The subject which I wish to discuss, the level of unemployment, naturally follows from the debate we have just had on the economic situation generally. I am sure that the House has listened with great appreciation to the speech of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in discussing the matter raised by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne).
But I must remark that the House faces a very peculiar state of affairs on these two debates. It was a very good thing that the hon. Gentleman raised the subject of the general economic situation, and it is a very good thing that I am raising the question of unemployment. But we should have had a full debate on the economic situation generally. It is pretty well unprecedented in modern times for us to depart for the Summer Recess without a general debate on the economic situation demanded by the Opposition. It is particularly unprecedented when outside the House the Leader of the Opposition has made speeches damaging for the country and, he would hope, for the Government, speeches which say that the country is on the road to ruin, that we are hurtling into ever deeper bankruptcy and indebtedness. It is extraordinary for the Leader of the Opposition to say that outside in such emphatic terms as the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) has chosen to do, and then to decide not to have a debate in the House but to compel the hon. Member for Louth and some of my hon. Friends to have on the Consolidated Fund Bill a debate which for 20 years we should normally have had in other circumstances, with the Opposition demanding it. Everybody in the


country should recognise, when we are discussing the whole of our economic situation and the level of unemployment at this late hour and on this Bill, which is normally devoted to particular matters that hon. Members wish to raise, that the choice rests with the Leader of the Opposition, who in an unprecedented way has refused to face the challenge of an economic debate at this time.
Therefore, I hope that we shall not have any squeals from the Opposition tonight or at any time about not having had an opportunity to debate this matter. They know very well that they ran away from an economic debate at this time. They were prepared to make wild statements outside, but not to substantiate them here. The speech of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and the figures he has given of the truth about the nation's indebtedness cast a remarkable light on the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition outside. It is most deplorable that we have not had a full debate.
Having spoken earlier in the day without enlisting universal approbation from the House, I do not propose to speak at great length now. The subject I am raising is of extreme importance. We put it down as soon as we discovered that there was not to be a general economic debate. We thought that it would be inexcusable if the House departed for the Summer Recess without having a debate on the level of unemployment. I am surprised that the Official Opposition which has many more opportunities than we have of raising debates, have not done this. But the deficiency has been repaired, and the House will not depart for the Summer Recess without discussing the very serious unemployment figures that we now face.
I appreciated some parts of my hon. Friend's speech, but when he talks of the comparatively favourable conditions in which we are to conduct the hard slog I must say to him that the hard slog is also to be conducted at a time when we have heavier unemployment than we have had in this country for years past. So a considerable part of the burden of the hard slog is being put on some of the unemployed—unemployed people in my constituency and other constituencies. We on this side regard this matter as being the most serious aspect of the economic situation generally.
The underlying trend of unemployment has been steadily upwards since February. The figure is 581,000, seasonally adjusted, for July—2·5 per cent., the highest level for any month since the present method of calculation was introduced and probably the highest figure since 1940. These are very serious matters.
What is to happen next? I will not make any wild prophecies. I do not wish to spread any despair. But it would not be an extraordinary guess for someone to say that in the autumn, if the trend goes on, the figure is likely to be well over 600,000. That is the present indication. Some would say, and have said, higher.
We want the Minister to tell us what estimate the Government make about this. Some of us have been trying for months to get the Government or the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to tell us their estimate of the unemployment level. One of the arguments of the Labour Party used to be that the whole economic plan should be partly designed to ensure that the unemployment figure was kept to the lowest possible. We want to know the Government's estimate of what the level of unemployment will be in the autumn and at Christmas. They must make some calculation, and we think it ought to be revealed to the House. If it is to be a figure—

Sir Douglas Glover: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten the Prime Minister's reply to a Question by me in 1966, long before the major crisis arose, when he told the House that he thought that after the shake-out the nation would expect a permanent level of unemployment of between 2 and 2½ per cent.?

Mr. Foot: I remember the reference, and that is why right from July, 1966, some of us in the House—a minority on this side, I am sorry to say; nobody else—have opposed both the deflation and the other measures that have produced the heavier unemployment. Right from the time the Prime Minister made that statement some of us have been urging that the Government should apply themselves much more seriously to the level of unemployment that would arise. The figures now arising confirm what was said from benches on this side of


the House much more than they confirm what was said from either of the Front Benches on the question of what the level was likely to be.
So I first want my hon. Friend to tell us the Government's estimates of what the level of unemployment is likely to be in the autumn and the winter. Then I want him to tell us whether the Government accept the figure and whether they will take any measures to prevent such a high figure from appearing.
Some people are content to accept this high figure. Among them are our creditors.The Times' correspondent in Washington, Mr. David Spanier, last week reported the opinion of the members of the International Monetary Fund about this level of unemployment and the present situation. He reported that the opinion of the experts was:
Britain should keep on to the end of the road and if need be clamp down more heavily. That is the message from the executive directors of the International Monetary Fund.
He went on to say that that was absolutely clearly what the message was to be. That is the opinion of our creditors. In a few days' time Mr. Richard B. Goode is arriving here to look at the accounts, and presumably he will voice much the same opinion.
If there are discussions in the Treasury in the next few days, after the House has risen, on the level of unemployment—discussions between the Chancellor and the representatives of the International Monetary Fund—we have it on the authority which I have just quoted that all the influence of the I.M.F. will be used to persuade us to continue with this high level of unemployment and, if necessary, to clamp down even more heavily.
That is one of the reasons why some of us opposed the letter sent to the I.M.F.—precisely because we believed that it involved these implications. It is not fanciful for anyone to suppose that over the next few weeks in the Treasury and the Government there will be arguments whether they should clamp down. One of our objections to the borrowing of money on those terms and to the letter which was sent by the present Home Secretary was that it bound our hands. It is difficult for the Government

to reject that kind of advice when those terms have been accepted. It is a very serious matter when the employment of people in my constituency is partly to depend on the advice, or even the pressure, which will come from the representatives of the I.M.F.
There is someone else in favour of maintaining the present level of unemployment—or at any rate he does not feel strongly that we should move in the opposite direction on employment. I refer to the Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Leslie O'Brien. We have often asked Ministers to state their view of the statements which Sir Leslie O'Brien has made on this subject. He made a statement in South America in October, 1967, just before devaluation, in which he said that it had been agreed by the authorities in this country that we would maintain a higher level of unemployment, a higher margin of unused resources, than had been acceptable for the previous 20 years.
That statement was made pre-devalua-tion, but it has never been withdrawn and we have asked time and again that it should be withdrawn. The only answer we have had was that by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury— although perhaps the Prime Minister gave roughly the same kind of answer— which was in effect that they did not want to give the lie direct to Sir Leslie O'Brien and that we must not offend his susceptibilities. Some of us are more concerned about the susceptibilities of our constituents—

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I hate to intervene, but my hon. Friend must not distort what I said. I said that one who was as great a champion of free speech as my hon. Friend ought to allow others the right to express opinions, which are not necessarily the opinions of the Government.

Mr. Foot: In that case we want a little more free speech from the Government because I want to know what is the Government's view of Sir Leslie O'Brien's statement that we should maintain a pool of unemployment. These are extremely important questions. I have said before and I repeat: it is scandalous that the Governor of the


Bank of England should be permitted to make statements of that nature. How does my hon. Friend think that it will be viewed by unemployed people in Tredegar? How do they regard it when my hon. Friend says that Sir Leslie O'Brien is entitled to free speech and much not be—and has not been—repudiated? Indeed, I believe that Sir Leslie thinks that the Government are still pursuing that same policy. He thought when he made that statement that he was expressing Government policy, and as the Government have not given him the lie direct he is entitled to say that it is Government policy. I hope that my hon. Friend will talk plainly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and let him know that we feel, at a time when unemployment in this country is higher than at any time since 1940, that we ought to be given a clear statement from the Government whether they believe in this idea of a pool of unemployment.
There are other people who believe in it. We have heard reference tonight to the Report by the London and Cambridge Economic Survey on this very subject of the level of unemployment. Although an interesting document, I will not go into all its comments about the export of capital, although they confirm much of what many of my hon. Friends and I have been saying. Our views have been repeatedly repudiated by the Government. Month after month some of my hon. Friends have been the only people to draw attention to the dangers to our balance of payments arising from the failure of the Government properly to control the export of capital.
This survey calculates the surplus we may hope for in our balance of payments in the next year. It says, commenting on what has been happening in the early months of 1968, that more drastic action should be taken to deal with the export of capital. It assumes that the Government will take steps to deal with this problem, particularly from the point of view of the export of capital to Australia and Canada. After assuming that the Government will take these steps and after pointing to the beneficial effects that those steps would have, the survey says:

It is essential, however, to prevent any semblance of excessive demand in the wake of devaluation. In present circumstances, this means that unless the balance of payments moves into surplus more quickly and on a bigger scale than expected, unemployment should not be allowed to fall below 2 per cent. of the labour force.
Here is a third expert authority saying that we should be content with heavy unemployment. The I.M.F., the Governor of the Bank of England and now these expert Paish-ites put out this doctrine of a heavy rate of unemployment; and we believe that many people in the Treasury accept this doctrine.
Time and again we have asked the Government if they believe that their economic policy should be directed to maintaining an unemployment figure above 2 per cent. throughout the country. We are entitled to an answer and the more the Government refuse to give it the more suspcious it makes us about the whole proposition and the more it makes us believe that the Government have accepted the Paish doctrine that this is the way to run the economy.
The majority of my hon. Friends and the overwhelming majority of Labour Party supporters in the country will never accept the doctrine that we need maintain a pool of unemployment of this size so that it may be used as a mechanism for making the economy work. We shall go on raising this matter as long as it appears that the Government are prepared to accept such a high level of unemployment.
One reason—only one; there are many others—why we entirely repudiate such a doctrine is that if the Government accept the idea of a 2 per cent. level of unemployment throughout the country, their policy for the development areas will be disrupted. Do the Government appreciate this? I have often said that I greatly appreciate certain aspects of the Government's development area policy, and many steps have been taken to assist these areas. In my constituency, despite the heavy level of unemployment, if it had not been for Government assistance we would be worse off still.
But once it becomes accepted that the Government are prepared to tolerate a level of unemployment of 2·5 per cent., we can only assume what will happen to all the plans to steer new industries to the development areas. It will break


down. One might call this the Lewisham-Ebbw Vale syndrome. If it becomes known and accepted that in Lewisham or in the so-called grey areas—

Mr. Stanley Orme: Or in Salford.

Mr. Foot: In Salford or elsewhere— that the Government are prepared to accept a general unemployment level of 2 per cent., 3 per cent. or perhaps more, the efforts to steer industries into the development areas will be meaningless.
Far be it for me to argue against any hon. Member who comes from a grey area and who wants to secure for it advantages we have in the development areas. But if we get throughout the whole country a 2 per cent. rate of unemployment, the dykes will break. The Government will not be able to maintain the differentiations in assistance as between the grey areas, development areas and other areas. The first consequence of allowing unemployment at this level to be tolerated is to destroy eventually the Government's development area policy.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: The hon. Gentleman keeps using the word "tolerate". But that is not the point. In July, 1966, the Prime Minister said that unemployment would not reach a level which hon. Members would find intolerable in the circumstances. We want to know what is the level, which we are expected to tolerate as between one area and another and over all.

Mr. Foot: I understand that. My first point was that the level the Government appear to accept is intolerable. I am now arguing that one of the further reasons why we find it intolerable is that it will strike a mortal blow at an essential part of Government policy. I do not know whether the Government understand or appreciate fully that, if they maintain unemployment at this level, they will not be able to use their present methods to steer industry into development areas.
It has always been the case that development areas get full advantage of discrimination which the Government rightly give them only if we have a boom. During a boom, if the Government maintain the divisions between in-

centives and discriminate between development areas and others, industry goes into the development areas and we can change their prospects over the next 10 or 20 years. But if we accept unemployment at this level, that prospect breaks down.
I know that hon. Members opposite are prepared to see it break down. The Powellite philosophy is that we cannot run discrimination and that it is bound to break down. Of course, if we leave the situation only to market forces it will break down, and I warn the Government that the result of sustaining or accepting the present level of unemployment will be, in the end, the same as that which would be brought about by the Powellite philosophy. The Government should check the situation in time.
The Government may argue that there is no alternative to their policy other than the policy advocated by hon. Members opposite, either in the Powellite or in the Heathite versions. There is not a great deal of difference between these two. Earlier tonight, hon. Members opposite were advocating heavier deflation. They would have clamped on more repressive measures earlier this year, which would have caused a much higher unemployment figure than we have now. It should be known throughout the country that hon. Members opposite would have imposed measures which would have pushed unemployment even higher than it is now.
That is why my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity say, when they speak on these matters, that the only alternative to their policy is the one advocated, sometimes openly and sometimes surreptitiously, by hon. Members opposite—heavier deflation and heavier unemployment, depressing the economy by such means.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Government said that the prices and incomes policy was the alternative to deflation and this level of unemployment. Now we have both.

Mr. Foot: I understand that. It is part of my argument, not the hon. Gentleman's. They say that the prices


and incomes policy plus the moderate deflation, as compared with the more savage deflation that hon. Gentlemen opposite advocate, is the only alternative for the nation. That is the way that they want the debate to go in the country, but we are not prepared to accept it. There is a very different alternative and the figures of increased unemployment, of increased productivity which we have had recently, show what has been happening in the country, and they do not justify the Government's case or that of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
They justify the case of the third policy, which has been presented to the nation throughout. I hope that we will never again hear from a Minister that there is not an alternative. Of course there is. Let them read, in the light of what has happened in the last few months, the policy presented, not only by hon Members in this section of the House, but by the T.U.C. This policy has been advocated by my hon. Friends and supported by the T.U.C. The latest unemployment figures show productivity increasing but unemployment falling. All this was prophesied by the T.U.C.
Page 53 of its report says:
… a reflation that expands demand only moderately may make little inroad into the high unemployment that characterises the later stages of deflation. Even a rapid expansion will only gradually reduce the total of unemployed.
That is the situation in which we are now in today. Page 61 says:
… the General Council believe that the Government is still underestimating the amount of spare capacity in the economy, and the underlying improvement in productive potential to which the Prime Minister himself has previously drawn attention. … Shortages of labour in previous periods, which were reflected in the hoarding of labour by employers, have given way to extensive unemployment. The best way of guarding against a reversion to the previous situation is by developing productivity bargaining, which can be further encouraged only in the context of falling unemployment and greater job opportunities.
The report goes on:
In particular, trade unionists should not respond, in terms of accepting the changes in their own attitudes and practices which are advocated in this Review, to policies which would in their view lead to little reduction in unemployment during the next eighteen months.
What has been happening in these months has borne out what the T.U.C.

prophesied. We are now getting the heavier unemployment because of the moderate expansion for which the Government have planned. The figure for actual expansion is higher than the Government foretold could take place. I am glad to see that it is happening, despite what the Government said, and it is bearing out what the T.U.C. said. I hope that the Chancellor and other Ministers will study very carefully, in the light of July, what the T.U.C. said in February and what some of us said immediately after devaluation—what we said a few months earlier. Our prophecies of what would happen to the economy have been borne out, not the prophecies of the Government, or the Opposition.
The Opposition prophesied bankruptcy and ruin and they are still doing so. The Government prophesied that there would be falling unemployment. It has been going the other way. This is because they did not expand the economy sufficiently fast, and they did not do that because they adopted the orthodox policy of the creditors. Because they stuck to the orthodox policy we had the spectacle of some increase in production, but no real effect in dealing with the underlying unemployment, and in many areas severe unemployment—the worse unemployment situation since the war.
I do not want any talk about economic miracles while that goes on. I do not want any talk about the good conditions in which the hard slog is to be conducted. I say that the Labour Party should state that we regard a heavy level of unemployment—which prevents the Government from dealing with the huge unemployment in development areas—as intolerable. I am not content with a situation in which the Government are content with the present position, when we have 5 per cent. or 6 per cent., even 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. unemployed in some areas. It is intolerable. The Government should not speak in these complacent terms. A Labour Government should be speaking during every hour of the day about employment. They should not be prepared to talk about being satisfied with the present situation, particularly when an alternative policy has been presented to them. Never let them say to us or the country that it is a choice between the barren, bankrupt policy of the Tories and their own moderate,


cautious, pussy-footing methods. That is not the alternative. There is a third possibility for the nation, and we believe that it is the only way in which this Government and this country can save themselves.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: The subject of this debate affects not only the areas badly dealt with in relation to the prospects of employment but the country as a whole. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, on the Government's decisions the solution not only of this problem but of the country's problems. It was Bishop Gore who gave the definition of a Christian as one who was able to look at statistics with compassion. I do not suggest that the Government are not looking at the statistics with compassion, nor that a tremendous amount has not been done in tackling the problems of unemployment which beset certain areas.
One of the great watersheds in political life in this country was the fact that for the first time in British history, in the wake of the Second World War, with the upsurge of post-war planning and the changing outlooks in the nation, the main political parties came to the conclusion that the cornerstone of the economy should be full employment. One did not work out one's economic policy and hope that full employment would follow. One's economic policy was based on the foundation of full employment and the rest of the policy was built round it. The danger at the moment is that we are tucking the unemployment problem into a corner and hoping that the other economic problems will be solved somehow. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale talked about the speech of the Governor of the Bank of England. He and many others have been talking in economic terms about the level of unemployment which the country needs to solve its other problems instead of dealing with the matter the other way round.
I wish to consider not only the figures of unemployment but the consequences. If the present unemployment figure moving towards 600,000, represented the number of unemployed people moving from one job to another or was merely

transitional, very short-term unemployment, one could argue that the economy was working all right. I am not prepared to accept the figure even on a transitional basis. I argue that, if it were a transitional figure, it would be reasonably easy for the economy to bear it. Contained within that global figure of the nation's unemployed is a rising number of long-term unemployed. It is this rising figure of long-term unemployed that concerns those of us who represent constituencies in development districts. We do not ask that the high figures of unemployment ruling in the development districts should be transferred to the overcrowded Midlands and the South-East which have a low level of unemployment.
The Government's policy in creating new industry in development districts has been a considerable success story. It is one on which the Government spokesman will no doubt amplify later. The disturbing factor about this success story to those of us from those areas which are receiving new industries is that, fast though we move, successful though the new measures and the new ventures have been in keeping the rising tide of unemployment down, we are still faced with figures of from 4 per cent. to 10 per cent. unemployed in certain pockets throughout the country.
Two or three weeks ago my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) asked the then Minister of Labour what would be the difference in the weekly payment of unemployment benefit if the unemployment figures in the Northern Region, which at that time were running at 4.5 per cent., were reduced to the national average of 2.5 per cent. He was told that the difference would be £130,000—just over £1 million in 2 months. Thus, in considering the problem of those who are unemployed and those who are facing unemployment, it should be appreciated that it would have been much better if the Government had dealt with the unemployment problem by using the money paid out in unemployment benefit further to develop the districts which needed the cushioning, the assistance, and the development district policy.
I believe that in the past the Government have laboured too much in the past by talking about the benefits which


have accrued to development districts without considering the overall policy which will provide us with the solution to these problems. It is said that if the economy is over-heated we shall run into difficulties. I would be prepared to take the risk of full employment. I would be prepared at this moment to eliminate the present figures of unemployed and let the other aspects of our economic problems be sorted out from that angle. When so much of our economic policies hang in the balance, it is far better to take the risk of a policy of full employment by taking people from the development districts, who are already signing on at the labour exchanges, and putting them into the work that they need and, indeed, deserve.
I turn now to two other aspects of this problem. The development districts have borne the brunt of the changing face of British industry. Contained within the development districts of Britain we have the declining industries. Some of those industries are not so much in decline as they were. Long overdue, but no fault of the present Government who only took power in October, 1964—

Mr. Peter Emery: Four years.

Mr. Milne: It is all very well for the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) to talk of four years. But it was not until the present Government were returned to power that the measures needed to deal with the reorganisation of the shipbuilding industry, for instance—and this is one part of the success story— were taken and are now beginning to show considerable impact, particularly on the Tyne and on the Clyde. The forward prospects and figures there are very encouraging indeed.
When that is balanced with the position on the railways—again a problem for the development districts—and the coal mining industry and its inevitable and increasingly speedy contraction, one realises that, no matter how fast we move concerning development district policy, we will be faced with further unemployment.
It is no use talking about the difference between the ways that respective Governments in the post-war period dealt with this problem or the type of unem-

ployment benefit that is paid now compared with what was paid earlier. Nor is it good enough for the Government to talk about the redundancy payments agreements which exist in the coal mining industry and elsewhere. This is not what the development districts want. They want a return to full employment. Only that will remedy or redeem the pledges which were given in the 1964 and the 1966 elections.
My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, in the debate on the nation's economy, talked about the rising standard of living that was available to our people. I think my hon. Friend was perfectly correct in making this point, but we have had debates in this House in the past on discrimination against one type of citizen or another. So long as we tolerate a high level of unemployment, no matter what the general prosperity of the nation, we will be discriminating against a section of our community and leaving them outside the benefits which are being felt by others. If only for this factor, the problem of unemployment becomes a major priority for the Government.
That is why I welcome this debate, even at this late hour. Like others who have spoken, I am extremely sorry that this debate has not taken place before now, within the context of a major debate on the nation's economy, because we are dealing not merely with the question of employment, but with the failure of the nation and of the Government to use the economic resources at their disposal to the maximum extent. No nation in this modern world can hope to solve its economic problems unless every person in that nation is given the opportunity to work, and the services that he can give are properly utilised.
We have often been told that it is extremely difficult for the Government, even with the incentives they can offer, to persuade firms to move from London and the South to other areas because the skills needed for the newer industries are not available in those areas. This is not true. I can speak best about the area that I know best. Modern industries which have moved to the North-East have found the labour force there extremely adaptable. Workmen have moved from the older declining industries into the newer industries with an ease


and speed which, in the main, have surprised even the firms concerned.
I ask my hon. Friends on the Front Bench not to stick too closely to the briefs given to them by their Departments, but to consider the points which have been made during the debate. I ask them to realise that in the past too much attention has been paid to the balance of payments and to other not unimportant factors. I am not criticising that concentration of attention, but I am asking my hon. Friends to realise that full employment is the corner stone of our economy in the months and years ahead, and that it is only by having full employment that we can solve the general economic problems which confront us.

11.53 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): I propose to intervene for a few moments only to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) who, quite naturally, discussed the regional aspects of the problem confronting us tonight. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Treasury will reply to the debate in the general economic sense, but I should like to make one or two points about the regional aspects of the matter under discussion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) dealt with the regional aspects of the problem, but it seemed to me that he confused the issue by suggesting that high unemployment was spread throughout the country. This is not so. The higher levels of unemployment are to be found in three main development areas—Wales, the Northern Region, and Scotland. My hon. Friend asked whether we were tolerating these high levels of unemployment. Let me remind him that, having said that high unemployment is to be found in three main development areas, the Government are so tolerant of these levels that they are spending £300 million a year to eliminate them. That is the short answer to the point which the hon. Member was making, on the question whether we tolerate unemployment of this type.

Mr. Alec Jones: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that since the level of unemployment is increasing in these areas despite the

amount of assistance being given it indicates that that assistance is inadequate?

Mr. Lee: That does not necessarily follow. I shall try to show the amount of assistance being given. I am not arguing that to double the amount of assistance that we are giving would cure the problem, but I believe that given more time than we have yet had we can eliminate the problem. The problems of these areas—the North-East, Scotland and Wales—are problems of the rundown in the basic industries upon which those areas have lived for a hundred years. I agree that the figures of unemployment in the last two months have been disappointing, but that comes from the fact that the rundown in the coal industry, for example, has accelerated at a faster pace than we have been able to get new industry to take its place.
That is not to say that the Government's policies have failed; it means that they have not as yet had time to accelerate to the point at which they are adequately replacing the rundown of the older industries to which I have referred.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Member is developing the case that the Government's policy is not a failure. The Prime Minister said that the development regions would be insulated from the effects of the July, 1966, measures, but unemployment in the Northern Region today is double what it was in 1966. Is that success?

Mr. Lee: I have pointed out that the problem of the Northern Region is the huge rundown in the mining industry— but unless that industry is run down we shall never eliminate the problem of the region. It is a disappointment that, as yet, the attractions of the development area policy have not managed to catch up with the basic rundown in that industry.
Let us consider what has been achieved. Since 1960 over 190 new manufacturing firms have set up in the Northern Region. That region, with about 6·2 per cent. of the total United Kingdom population, had an estimated 17·3 per cent. of additional employment arising from I.D.C.s in 1965; 13·1 per cent. in 1966, and 16·1 per cent. in 1967. About 9,900 new jobs are estimated to have been created by I.D.C. approvals in the first half of this year compared with 9,100 in the first


half of 1967, thus proving that we are not failing to get new industry into the area.
Industries are now expanding well, but I grant that the basic problem is the huge acceleration in the rundown of the industries upon which these areas have depended for well over 100 years. The jobs in prospect in the new and expanding firms in the Northern Region in the next four years number about 41,000— nearly two-thirds of which are for males.
I want to outline the way in which we are accelerating the assistance that we are rendering. Since the Local Employment Act of 1960, 53 advance factories have been approved for the Northern Region, of which 37 have been approved since the Government came into being in October, 1964. In considering the location of recent additions to the programme particular regard has been paid to those areas most affected by the colliery closures. In terms of floor space, advance factories completed in the Northern Region represent 40 per cent. of completions in all development areas, and at present the region has eight completed factories unlet, only one of them being in a special development area.
Let me now give a little information on the advance factory programme, which I hope my hon. Friends will consider is praiseworthy. If we look at completions of advance factories from October, 1960, to October, 1964, the previous dispensation managed to create 12. From October, 1964, to July, 1967, when these programmes were getting under way, completions totalled 17. Completions from July, 1967, to July, 1968, totalled 14. This acceleration of the advance factory programme has been dramatic.
Again, if one looks at investment grants and grants under the Local Employment Acts, grants paid in the Northern Region under the latter last year amounted to £9·5 million. In 1967–68, again, no less than £57·5 million, or 38 per cent. of the total for all development areas, was paid to the Northern Region in investments grants. The regional employment premium which came into operation only last year will bring an extra £28 million a year in Government assistance. Again, development areas were recently exempted from the withdrawal of the S.E.T. premium. This we estimate will bring the North another £7 million a year.
Since 1964 we have been giving financial assistance to the North-East Development Council towards its work in trying to attract new industry to the area, and last July similar aid was given to the Cumberland Development Council based at Whitehaven. In trying to deal with the problem of getting new science-based industries into the area, the Ministry of Technology has set up five industrial liaison centres in the region, with the object of increasing liaison with the technical colleges and encouraging firms to adopt new techniques. We are seeking out new viable technical programmes which merit financial support. One could go on with a great list of projects by which we are seeking to get new science based industries in order not only to get people to take new jobs in the areas, which may fold up, but to form a basis for the future prosperity of the areas.
We have recently created special development areas with even greater grants than are available in the development areas themselves. Five employment exchange areas in Northumberland, 11 in Durham and six in Cumberland are now covered by these new measures, with extra inducements to persuade industry to move into or expand in those areas. Within the special development areas, the moment an advance factory is taken we will replace it, under a rolling programme, with a further advance factory. As a consequence, more factories have been taken, and now only one advance factory in a special development area in the whole Northern Region is without a tenant. Major industrial estates are being established at Cramlington, in Northumberland, and Brandon, in County Durham, with a rather smaller one in Cumberland. We are also ready to consider suggestions for other measures of assistance.
I have repeated the point about the terrible problems of the mining industry. To alleviate hardship among older ex-miners who would probably find difficulty in obtaining alternative employment, we have introduced under an Order submitted to the House, the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme, which came into operation in June. This scheme provides for payment out of public funds to mineworkers over 55 years of age made redundant between 17th July, 1967 and 28th March, 1971,


sums equivalent to 90 per cent. of their take-home pay after they have been declared redundant. A miner under 55 years of age will receive redundancy payments open to others under existing legislation.
We attach very great importance to the point made by my hon. Friend about retraining. This is one of the basic problems which face the nation. I remember asking Questions from the opposite side of the House when the previous Government were doing nothing about it. We now have four centres with a potential output of about 1,600 trainees a year. A fifth centre is to be opened this year at Maryport. There will be others at Darlington and Middlesbrough. In time the potential output of trainees from these centres will be over 3,600 a year. We are also making generous grants to firms which provide their own training.
There has been discussion and argument in this House about public investment. The North used to be at the bottom of the table of public investment in the regions. It is very difficult to calculate exactly what any one region's share is, but provisional figures we now have for public investment on new construction works indicate that on the basis of public investment per head of the population the North is now fifth, not tenth as it was before. Expenditure has increased by about 94 per cent. since 1963–64, from £66 million to £115 million.
Last year in the minor works programme we spent an extra £7 million on the Northern Development Area. It is not the case that the Government have permitted stagnation or any other features of decay in the development areas. Housing, for instance, is now running at near record levels and, despite cut-backs in the country as a whole, it has been made clear that the programmes in the Northern Region will be safeguarded.
In road programmes £130 million has been allocated to projects in the five-year period 1965–70. Ministry of Transport funds committed during the last year total £55 million. As yet there have been no postponements of starting dates in the Northern Region. By facilitating move-ment within the region and making for easier contact between the region and

markets in the South, the roads programme will serve as a very powerful aid to economic expansion.
My hon. Friend did not mention a great development which he and I are very happy about, the coming of the Alcan centre to Lynemouth. This will employ 900 men and during the construction work a team of between 2,000 and 3,000 will be engaged on building the smelter. I believe that development will act as a magnet in attracting ancillary industry to the area.
A comment was made by my hon. Friend about shipbuilding. It got a sneer from hon. Members opposite. Perhaps I can help them to get rid of the sneer. There has been a positive upsurge of orders for shipping on the Tyne and on the Wear. A further £15 million of orders for Wear firms was announced only last week. The Swan Hunter and Tyne shipbuilding group has in hand orders worth £102 million, including £51 million worth secured since the consortium came into being at the beginning of this year. Wear shipbuilders now have in hand orders worth £72 million. These are very real accomplishments, which would not have been possible had it not been for the actions of the Government.
I am sorry that I have kept the House so long, but I wanted to reply to the regional points made by my hon. Friend. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale that it is not the case that there is any inbuilt desire in the Government to tolerate any kind of percentage of unemployment. I would not remain a member of any Government which ever did. For my part, having known something of the practical side of unemployment over a period of years, I would consider it disgusting and degrading for any Government to connive at or to tolerate any levels of unemployment.
Until we can get a proper balance of industry throughout the nation, until we can get rid of the imbalance which has cursed us for so long, there will be economic problems of the overheating of one area while we still have unemployment levels in other areas.

Mr. Scott: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lee: No, I will not. This is now proceeding apace. There are successes, as I have tried to show, but certainly, for our part, there is no desire to retain levels of unemployment as part of the economic programme. Indeed, there is precisely the opposite.
I hope that my hon. Friends will take what I have said, that where there is unemployment—and I have pinpointed the areas of it—we are now expending moneys at a pace unheard of at any period of industrial history. We are not doing this because we desire to maintain unemployment. We are doing it for the very reason which is deep in the "guts" of my hon. Friends and myself, because to us unemployment is unacceptable. It is not a feature which any of us would want to tolerate.
I have tried to answer the regional points and to give the general assurance that there is nothing in our policies which presupposes the need or the toleration of any particular levels of unemployment.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. James Dickens: After that enthusiastic statement of Government policy from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I merely make one comment on his remarks. Despite all the money which has been spent and all the achievements listed by my right hon. Friend, the facts are that in the Northern Region today, in July, 1968, some 6,000 more people are out of work than were out of work in July, 1963, and in Wales over the same period, 36,000 people are out of work in 1968 as against 27,000 five years ago. Therefore, the point made about the Rhondda is absolutely right—namely the Government must do very much more than they have been able to do so far to cure this regional imbalance.

Mr. Frederick Lee: May I again make the point that not only in the Rhondda, but taking the Welsh valleys as a whole, and in the Northern Region, in the 1963 period there was a huge rundown, which had to come, in the mining industry. In the Northern Region there are now more people employed in science-based industries, engineering, chemicals, and so on, than there are in coal. That is a very great achievement.

Mr. Dickens: I appreciate that, but I think that my right hon. Friend overlooks other factors. For example, he has not mentioned the considerable depopulation which has taken place over the past five years from Wales or from the North and which is continuing all the time.
When the House resumed after the Summer Recess last year, it turned its attention at once to the question of unemployment. The fact that we are again debating it tonight before we adjourned for the Summer Recess and the fact that we have debated it on a number of occasions throughout this Parliamentary Session is sufficient indication of the deep concern and anxiety felt by many of us on this side, and, indeed, throughout the whole House, about the present trends in unemployment.
Unemployment, whether it takes place in Lewisham, in Blyth or in Ebbw Vale, is a human tragedy and is social waste. I want to analyse two central factors affecting unemployment: first, the effect of deflation on unemployment in, so to speak, the Callaghan deflationary cycle since 1966, and to contrast that with the earlier Selwyn Lloyd cycle of deflation between 1961 and 1963; second, the modernisation of industry and its effects on unemployment. Both problems are separate and must be analysed separately.
It is appropriate that the House should tonight examine unemployment, for we are just past the anniversary of the measures of 20th July, 1966 which launched us on our present deflationary cycle. How does this cycle compare in its effects on unemployment with the earlier deflationary cycle of 1961–63?
In July, 1961, seven years ago, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer launched his deflation with 259,000 people unemployed. The figure rose to 878,000 by February, 1963, of which perhaps 250,000 could be accounted for in that month because of exceptional weather conditions. So the real figure of unemployed in February, 1963, the high point of that deflationary cycle, was about 628,000. By July, 1963, that is, two years after the deflationary cycle had commenced, the figure had fallen to 449,000. In short, it had risen by 190,000 in the two years.
When my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary began his deflationary cycle in July, 1966, unemployment was almost identical with what it had been in July, 1961, at 264,000. By January of this year, we had reached the peak in this two-year deflationary cycle, with unemployment totalling 631,000, about the same peak figure as on the earlier occasion. But today, in mid-summer 1968, much more ominously, the figure is not 450,000 as it was in 1963 but 514,000, that is, 65,000 more.
All the indications are that we have now reached, as it were, a turning point in our attitude towards unemployment and towards future trends in unemployment. There have been references to the Prime Minister's view of the level of unemployment in 1968. Those of us on this side who argued the case for devaluation as part of a package of measures designed to break away from traditional fiscal policy urged upon the Government a real alternative policy. In November last year, in the first flush of the immediate post-devaluation period, when he was talking privately—the House and the country should know this —of a rate of economic growth this year of 6 per cent., not 4 or 3 per cent., my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was asked by the Leader of the Opposition to reaffirm the Government's position on the level of unemployment as stated on 20th July, 1966. He replied:
Certainly I do, and I can tell him, on the best estimates available to us before devaluation "—
before devaluation, be it noted—
that unemployment next autumn"—
that is, the autumn of this year—
looked like being well within that l½ to 2 per cent. bracket, as a result of what was already going forward … It is right to tell the House that the problem which we shall be facing in a year's time is far more likely to be not deflation and unemployment but expansion to a scale which might lead to labour shortage in many areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 1334.]
The first question we must ask is "What has gone wrong since 22nd November, 1967?" One can at this stage only hazard a number of guesses, but I believe that immediately after devaluation the Government were quite sincere in their determination to go for a rate of economic growth of 6 per cent. and to

cut unemployment, but that they have been pushed back relentlessly and remorselessly by our international creditors and powerful forces in this country which are urging courses of action such as those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) drew attention. Need one doubt this? Let us look, for example, at the views of the Industrial Policy Group, described by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his post-devaluation speech, when he was Chancellor, as a sinister conspiracy. It says of the future levels of unemployment:
Realism demands that full employment so construed
and it tries to analyse the construction it has placed on the term in an earlier paragraph—
should cease to be a plank in the platforms of major political parties … Post-war experience is that a figure close to 2 per cent. unemployed with narrow fluctations about it would give the necessary flexibility without causing intolerable hardship. If the figure falls much below this level the system becomes too inelastic"—
whatever that may mean—
and inflationary pressures become inescapable.
We should try to see what truth there is in that argument. Is it the case that a high level of unemployment stops inflation? Between 1961 and 1963, during the earlier cycle when we had a high level of unemployment, when the party opposite were in power, the cost of living rose by 5·9 per cent. In the two immediately preceding years, from July, 1959, to July, 1961, the cost of living rose by 5·1 per cent., rather less.
What has happened in more recent times? From July, 1966, to June, 1968 —the figures for July are not yet available—the cost of living has risen by 7·5 per cent. Perhaps it will be seen to have risen by more than that when this month's figures are taken into account. In the two preceding years, between July, 1964, and July, 1966, it rose by just over 8 per cent. So there is little in it, if anything. Therefore, the Industrial Policy Group is totally wrong in its claim that inflation is in any significant way affected by the level of unemployment.
There are many other factors—devaluation, the levels of import prices and so on. all of which have a direct bearing


on the cost of living. Any examination of price trends in recent years does not bear out the assertion that the deliberate creation of unemployment leads to a slowing down in the increase in the cost of living, nor is it the case that
… the system becomes too inelastic and inflationary pressures become inescapable.
I would argue the contrary case. As the T.U.C. argues very cogently in paragraph 6 of its Economic Review,
The first essential for active trade union co-operation in industrial change is a credible plan for full employment.
A moment's reflection will show, as the T.U.C. goes on to argue, that
If the new approach to productivity throughout the country proves in the eyes of work people to have been at their expense, there will be an inevitable tendency for them to protect themselves in the only way they know, by restricting output and productivity and by sharing work.
This produces a much more inelastic situation than a high level of employment throughout the country. So on the basis of analysis and of all our experience in dealing with rapid industrial change and increases in productivity, all the evidence shows that a high level of unemployment is a direct hindrance to change because people are fearful of change. A high level of employment— in short, full employment—speeds the process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale reminded us of the speech of Sir Leslie O'Brien in Buenos Aires to the Anglo-Argentine Commerce Society. It might be that in the interval, thanks to the pressures on him, Sir Leslie has changed his views. Alas, this is not the case. It is important to see what the most recent expression of his views in a collective sense amounts to. This ties up with the question that I posed about what has happened since 22nd November.
The most recent report of the Bank for International Settlements published on 10th June, appropriately enough in Basle, made a 20-page analysis of the British economy and what was wrong with it between the devaluation of 1949 and the devaluation of 1967. It lists eight points which it thinks were weaknesses. Some of my hon. Friends will be interested to learn that among the eight points it includes demands for cuts in public expenditure and the need for a revision of labour law—and how much we have

heard on that from the Conservative Party in recent months.
The fourth item is:
Throughout most of the 1950s the economy was kept under the pressure of an overfull employment level of demand which tended to erode the competitive benefits of devaluation.
It was saying by implication that we cannot go back to the levels of employment that we knew in the 1950s and that if Britain is to succeed with the present devaluation we must be accustomed to a much higher level of unemployment. It may interest hon. Members to know that one member of the Board of directors is our good friend, Sir Leslie O'Brien.
It may be asked what Sir Leslie is doing giving collective expression to this view of the Bank for International Settlements, which arranges the credits for which the Government are so diligently negotiating and which has told the Government that they can have medium-term loans and credits and, in a sense, as much borrowing as they want to keep sterling afloat in the short term so long as they run the British economy by arrangement with it and in agreement with what it lays down about the level of expenditure and unemployment and about trade union policy.
It may be thought that I have a fixation about bankers. That is not so. Bankers are no doubt good husbands and fathers and, for all I know, good sons and lovers. But for the most part they are bitterly hostile to the aims and policies of democratic socialism. The Government have been edged away from a much more rapid rate of economic growth, which the Prime Minister and the Cabinet originally set out to achieve in November last year, because of the pressures upon them from the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements, the Swiss banks consortium, theDeutschesbundesbank and other organisations abroad, and at home from organisations like the Industrial Policy Group and interests in the City. It will be very hard to prove that. In 30 years' time, when all the public documents are available in the Public Record Office, we can examine the matter, if we are alive. But for the time being we have to be content with the information which we have.
All the public information and all the private conversations go to show that


the Government made no fight at all for an alternative policy on the lines set out in the T.U.C. Economic Review and on the lines argued by some of us in the recent past. Through the Letter of Intent to the I.M.F. on 30th November, 1967—a letter of breathtaking foolishness for the future development of this country —they offered the I.M.F., without a great deal of pressure, all that the I.M.F. could have wanted by way of restrictions on pay, the level of unemployment and incomes policy.
The Bank for International Settlements and the European central banks are a different kettle of fish. The I.M.F. are perhaps more generous creditors. But the fact is that as a consequence of pressure or by agreement the Government have got themselves into a position in which, by and large, they are content to run the economy on terms either agreed with or dictated by foreign bankers, and that has led to a situation in which we are to tolerate as a permanent feature of British life in at least the years immediately ahead a figure of 500,000 to 700,000 people out of work, in summer and in winter, with only minor fluctuations around these levels.
That means that the Government have been pushed off the level of economic growth of 6 per cent. which the Prime Minister expressly advocated at a private meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party. They were pushed back to 4 per cent., at which even the Treasury thought that we might aim. Ultimately they were forced back to a level of 3 per cent. and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said, they are getting rather more than that in spite of themselves.
The T.U.C. did not argue for 6 per cent. for nothing. In its Economic Review it argued that an important component of that 6 per cent. would be take-up from the existing level of unemployment and take-up from the existing level of spare capacity. It was for those reasons that it argued that we could expand above the level of 4 per cent. on which the Government had earlier settled.
I say to my hon. Friend that the time has come for the Government to listen to the advice given to them by their

friends. We were told by the Press that the T.U.C. Economic Committee met the Cabinet recently and again came away empty handed. The T.U.C. apparently argued that the Government should go for a much more rapid rate of economic growth designed to take full advantage of the increased productivity which we are getting and to get the level of unemployment down.
It may be argued that as a consequence of devaluation we have had to take severe measures to restrict the pressure of internal demand. I believe that, following devaluation, the steps which were taken to restrict the pressure of internal demand by £750 million—announced immediately after devaluation—were sufficient in themselves. Many people argued at the time that they were too much. But to add to those restrictions the cuts in public expenditure announced by the Prime Minister in January, the deflationary effects of the Budget and the further tightening of credit through the banks in May—all those steps together—has been altogether too severe. It is taking us into a position in which we are pursuing, first, a policy of devaluation and the Government's general economic strategy and, secondly, a policy of restriction and repressive deflation.
I want the Government to take some of the brakes off and to recognise that a prosperous home market for certain industries—a recent report about the motor industry bears that out—leads to lower export prices because wage costs per unit of output fall. They are run-ing a serious risk of getting industry in a position in which, because of the deflationary effects of Government policy on the domestic market, unit costs will perhaps rise steeply to the disadvantage of exports in the second half of 1968 and in 1969.
It would be interesting to know what calculation the Government have made of the effect on unemployment of the take-up in export demand. Mr. Michael Crawford, in theSunday Times last Sunday, gave a figure purporting to show that, for every £100 million net of increased exports we attain, we reduce unemployment by ·1 per cent. I know of no evidence for this but perhaps we can have a Treasury estimate of the effect on unemployment of increased exports.
The other aspect of Government policy to which I wish briefly to raise is the effect of rationalisation and modernisation of industry on unemployment levels. This will be a major problem which we must tackle in good time. My hon. Friend said there was growing pressure in the grey areas and some of the more prosperous areas, such as South-East London, where, for example, there has been a run-down in industry, such as the closure of the G.E.C.-A.E.I. factory in Woolwich. There is great resistance in such areas to work moving away into development areas. The reason is clear. People are frightened by the prevailing overriding job insecurity. Everywhere this is so and not just in areas of high unemployment.
Until we can work out a credible plan for full employment, until we can phase out older industries in a more methodical way and tie in with the phasing-out the development of new science-based industries in a way which will not lead to more than unavoidable and inevitable transitional unemployment, we run the risk of putting the future modernisation of industry seriously in jeopardy because people are unwilling to accept change when they feel insecure.
This issue confronts some of the biggest industries. The steel industry, for example, will have to shed about 150,000 workers by the 1970s. Many other industries will have to shed tens of thousands of employees. It is of the most urgent and highest importance that the Government devise plans for phasing out these older industries, deploying their workers to new industries and providing them with a much more comprehensive scheme of transfer allowances and benefits than at present. This will also mean a massive increase in the retraining programme, facilities and expenditure, as well as improved transferability of pension rights and so on.
There can be no burking the issue. We cannot go on haphazardly—for example, allowing another incident like that of the G.E.C.-A.E.I. closure in Woolwich, putting 5,500 people out of work at a moment's notice without any co-operation with the Economic Planning Council or anyone else.
Industrial change must be socially responsible, and, in drawing attention to

the negative and destructive features of deflation and unemployment, we are pointing out the need for constructive alternative policies on this and over the whole range of economic policy.

12.40 a.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: While I realise the problems discussed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) following the closure of major industrial concerns, he must accept that all parties are urging industry generally to achieve greater rationalisation, efficiency and productivity. If that were hampered by the whole procedure of closures and redundancies having to go through regional development councils, local authorities and other organisations, this process of rationalisation would be set back many years. That is one weakness in the hon. Gentleman's argument.
I was aghast to hear some of the Minister's remarks. He spoke as though the North-East, Scotland and Wales were the only areas that mattered and that, because of their high rates of unemployment, they should get most attention from the Government. That is an absolutely wrong approach to the problem of unemployment. As a result of one of my interests, I have played a part in attracting industry to the development areas. The hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) will confirm that I was instrumental in getting a factory established in his constituency, and that is now providing jobs for some of his constituents. Every hon. Member should attempt to attract new industries to such areas.
I condemn the approach made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale in suggesting that only this Government were dealing with the problem of the development areas. He knows it is not true. This is not a problem easily dealt with by either party.

Mr. Alec Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that many of the problems in South Wales could, and ought to have been, solved by his party if it had undertaken any programme for the re-industrialisation of the area? Complete neglect and failure to produce any plan is the main cause for the present delay in industrialisation.

Mr. Emery: I would not agree with that. I should be delighted to deal with


that, because I speak with a little authority. The problems of South Wales are the same as for the coal mining industry generally. The number of people leaving the industry this year will be as great as in any previous period. Some of the problems are worse today than they were in 1957 to 1960, when redeployment in the industry was as great as that carried out today. I am aware that the hon. Member feels that more should be done for his area, but there are other sections of the community neglected by the Government.
One such section is the seasonally unemployed, not just in development areas, but in seaside resorts, with high unemployment other than for six or eight weeks. Government policy has done nothing to help here. As a matter of policy they have prevented local authorities in such areas taking the necessary steps to deal with the problem. A year ago a company wished to move into Honiton. The number of unemployed was in hundreds, not tens of thusands, as elsewhere, but it is the percentage within the community which matters. It is very serious when that figure reaches 6, 7 or 8 per cent.
The local authority in Honiton went out of its way for a number of years to attract a small industry to the area. Finally it succeeded, and a firm decided to move to Honiton, just as a firm with which I was connected decided to move to Blyth. It happened that a site at Honiton was more ideal for this firm's purposes than a site anywhere else. About 250 jobs would have been created. A survey had been conducted by the firm to ensure that it could fill these jobs. It was convinced that it could.
My accusation against the Government is that active steps were taken to ensure that that firm would not go to Honiton, but moved elsewhere. This is a serious charge to make against the Government, but it is true. Anybody who knows anything about this instance knows that the Government would not give an industrial development certificate. Although the county council had gone as far as to purchase the land to encourage this firm to go to the area, the Government did everything in their power, and succeeded, to make certain

that nothing should be done for this area in Devon.
My accusation is not only that the Government failed, in their overall consideration of unemployment, to consider the smaller areas which are not within development districts, such as agricultural areas where there has been a flight from the land, but that they consider only areas where they see electoral advantage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I repeat it—only areas where they see electoral advantage.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: This has been a serious debate on a serious subject. Why drag it down to that level?

Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman must realise that I consider this to be a serious matter. If he thinks that my point is not true, let him or the Minister tell us an instance in the last four years of the Government having given aid or industrial development certificates to encourage a major industry to go to an area where no political advantage was to be gained. Of course hon. Members opposite do not like the accusation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I am delighted that even at this hour we can raise a little passion. They do not like it because it hits them hard and this is something of which they do not like being accused. But it is so. If hon. Members wish to advance arguments to the contrary, they should do so. On the whole, I know that it is so in the South-West and in other areas of which I have specific knowledge.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. E. Fernyhough): In the last couple of sentences the hon. Gentleman qualified his earlier statement. I hope that he is not trying to convince the House that we have any intention of subverting Northern Ireland by helping industry there.

Mr. Emery: If the hon. Gentleman thought that he had any chance of doing so, he would do it, but he knows that it would be hopeless. I have talked about Great Britain. I did not mention Northern Ireland. On the whole, the unemployment position in Northern Ireland is so severe that no Government could neglect it. What the hon. Gentleman has said does not alter my point


about Britain. I have given expression to the feeling which exists in the South-West and which has been proved to be true in many areas. If this is not so, why, when small pockets of unemployment go out of their way to help themselves, do the Government do nothing to assist them? The Government said that the position in Exmouth was no concern of theirs. If they say that, they must expect this accusation to be made.

Mr. Milne: As to the siting of the factory, the advantages are now appreciated by the firm that made the move. The hon. Gentleman spoke about action taken for political advantage. He must know that at the time the firm made the move the unemployment rate in the Cramling-ton-Blyth area was higher than that prevailing in Northern Ireland. To talk about political influences bearing on decisions concerning development districts is flying in the face of reality.

Mr. Emery: I shall not debate the circumstances affecting one factory which the hon. Gentleman and I know about, nor shall I say anything which might adversely affect the successful working of the factory in his constituency. That would not be in the interests of either of us. The factory is operating satisfactorily and we are pleased with the staff who are there. I am certain that (he locality has been pleased to receive the firm.
The argument in principle is that the only reason why the Government have been able to encourage firms to go to certain areas is that they have had a definite policy concerning the amelioration of high unemployment. The rate of unemployment in certain districts in the South-West has at times been higher than in Blyth. The Government have done nothing to attract industry to those areas. They have taken active steps to stop industry going there. That is what I accuse the Government of doing. That is the charge that the seaside and marginal areas of high unemployment in the South-West have to make against the Government. I have stayed late to make this specific point. The Government have to realise that their policy of—

Mr. Fernyhough: Will the hon. Member for Honiton at least acknowledge that part of the South-West is a development area and that for the whole of the

South-West the average rate of unemployment is lower than for Great Britain as a whole?

Mr. Emery: Yes, for the whole of the South-West. But will the Minister get his hon. Friend, in reply, to acknowledge that there are pockets in the South-West not in the development districts which have a higher rate of unemployment throughout the whole year, and specifically for nine months of the year, than most other areas in the United Kingdom? If the Government are not willing to try to do something for these areas they are neglecting their duty.
On top of this, if the Government take active steps to stop factories moving to these areas, having been attracted to them, they deserve the political accusation which I have made across the Floor of the House tonight. It is as clear and definite as that. There is no aid in development grants and there is no help in attempting to ensure that these areas are told about firms which would be willing to go there.
Selective Employment Tax is making the problem of unemployment in seaside and semi-rural areas worse, because it is being applied to the service and hotel industries when, in my view, it need not and should not be so applied. I cannot develop that, because obviously it would be out of place in this debate.
What I have attempted to make clear is that the Government are interested in Wales, Scotland and the North-East, and are not paying one jot of interest to certain of these smaller pockets of unemployment throughout the country. I use the South-West as the best example. If the Government will not do anything about these areas, it is understandable when people condemn them and make the sort of accusation that I have made across the Floor of the House. I am merely repeating what has been said by many people in my constituency: that aid cannot be expected for these smaller areas within the South-West, because the Government realise there is no political advantage to be gained.

1.4 a.m.

Mr. Brian Walden: I rise to make some random remarks about unemployment, not a coherent defence of the Government's


policy, because that would be presumptuous. That is obviously for the Government Front Bench to do. I am aware that these remarks will be deeply offensive to my hon. Friend—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it the usual custom for a Minister to make a speech and get straight up and walk out and never come back? That is not the usual courtesy to show to the House, is it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I am not aware of what the hon. Member is referring to.

Mr. Lewis: Is it the usual custom for a Minister to make a speech and then leave the Chamber? That is not the usual courtesy to the House, is it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a matter for the Government. I assume that the hon. Member is referring to a Minister who was on the Front Bench before I came into the Chair.

Mr. Fernyhough: My right hon. Friend was here as the Minister for the North-East to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) who was raising north-eastern problems. My right hon. Friend did not think that anybody else would be dealing with the North-East. He looked round the Chamber before he left to see whether anyone else would be raising points in connection with the North-East. He did not see anyone else, and, therefore, as my hon. and learned Friend intends to reply to the general debate, my right hon. Friend left the Chamber. I do not think that my right hon. Friend can be accused of discourtesy.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister made a statement to the effect that the Prime Minister made no remark about the degree of unemployment. He intervened in the debate, and then walked out. I am saying that that is not the thing to do. He should stay and listen to the debate.

Dr. Winstanley: Further to that point of order. If the explanation for the Minister's absence is as we have just been given it, that he intervened merely to reply to regional points about the North-East, may I ask whether we are

to have a selection of regional Ministers replying to hon. Members who raise points about the various regions?

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that my right hon. Friend has special responsibilities for the North-East. My hon. and learned Friend will reply to the general debate.

Mr. Emery: The right hon. Gentleman intervened after the second speech of the debate. It is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to say that his right hon. Friend did not think that anybody else would speak about the North-East. To intervene after the second speech and then to have his action defended by the hon. Gentleman is utter nonsense.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are raising matters which are not for the Chair, nor are they points of order.

Mr. Walden: When I rose some time ago to make some remarks, I did not think that we would be faced with a series of points of order. I have long regretted that in this House we do not have the custom which they have in Congress in America, that of reading things into the record. We could have saved the Minister the trouble of coming here this evening if he could have read his speech into the record. He did not seem to meet the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). Whatever my disagreement with my hon. Friend, he knows that I shall make some attempt to meet his point. It seemed a fair and straightforward explanation of what the Government were trying to do in the regions, but it would have been better given in a different debate on a different occasion.
Not everything that I say is meant to controvert what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. This debate is about the very point that he raised, and which was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens), namely, the charge —or the claim if a softer word is preferred—that the Government are regulating the economy and the level of demand in such a way as to create the present level of unemployment which, as my hon. Friend said, is the highest since 1940. When I said something like this not very long ago, many people in the Labour Party said that I was advocating


that we should have that level of unemployment. Far from it. I was saying that it was going to happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said that the Government were not clear in stating exactly what they predict the level of unemployment to be, and not entirely clear in explaining how it has come about. I do not dissent from him on that. I do not think that they are entirely clear, and I venture a view why. It is because they are horribly torn between what they know they have to do and what they think the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and his friends will put up with. So they are anxious that he should not understand the issue too clearly.
That does not work with him, because he is a highly intelligent man, but it does work with many other people in the country. I fully expect to see a Labour Party conference at which the Government will attempt to get an endorsement of their policies on devaluation, deflation, Budget strategy and restrictions strategy—on all of which I agree with them—and at one and the same time try to get through Conference a resolution saying that unemployment ought not to rise and that the Government are breaking their backs to see that it does not.
I do not blame them for trying to do that; they have a very difficult problem confronting them. The word "unemployment" in the Labour Party is the hydrogen bomb of the movement. One has only to mention the word and they stop thinking and start emoting. When the Minister spoke from the Dispatch Box earlier in the debate—in his sad intervention, which touched off so much acrimony—he could not refrain from the usual hand-on-heart pledge that he would not remain a member of a Government which could possibly tolerate this level of unemployment.

Mr. Mendelson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious to declare that the Government were opposed to unemployment because he does not share my hon. Friend's view that only my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) will see through this. He may realise that the people of Dudley and Caerphilly also see through it, as well as some others.

Mr. Walden: I will not pursue that point; I only want to say that I wish we could get out of this way of talking about serious economic matters. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale will give every assistance to those who hold what he often calls unpopular views which should be expressed in the House of Commons and ought to be subjected to the scrutiny of the House. I only hope that he will give us every assistance in discussing them in an intelligent 1968 style, and will not let loose the dogs of the 1930s on us, because it is that sort of thing that causes that sort of speech from the Front Bench.
It cannot be admitted that certain things are being done, because if it is admitted it is feared that the emotional reaction will be so great that the Government will suffer grave damage in the country, or grave danger at the party conference, or that there will be turmoil in the executive Government—not that it is exactly free from that at the moment.
I want to make a few random observations. In general, the level of unemployment is due to Government policy. It is a very good thing that the Government have at least consistently pursued certain economic policies since devaluation. I do not agree with those of my hon. Friends who appear to think that some domestic reflation—and some are asking for a substantial domestic relation—will in the long term be a good thing for this country.
Perhaps the Treasury should talk rather more. It is difficult for the Treasury—there is no Department for which I have greater sympathy, which makes me virtually unique among my hon. Friends—but perhaps it should talk more to some of its colleagues in the Government and instruct them on these points, because some of my hon. Friends are seriously misled by Ministerial speeches which do not make it absolutely clear that the Government will not satisfy demand by allowing domestic reflation to reach such a level as will adversely affect the economy.
That should be said, and not just by Treasury Ministers. It should be said not only by the Chancellor but by other Ministers in the Government, and particularly the Minister responsibe for employment. It should be said because it is


Cabinet policy, and anybody who sits in the Cabinet is endorsing that policy, and anybody who sits in the Cabinet should at any rate realise that his failure publicly to endorse that policy calls seriously into question his right to be there.
That is Government policy. The Government's policy is not to fill up by a domestic reflation; not to go for growth that will basically be growth in internal demand. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is absolutely right in saying that this is the principal reason for the figures we have. Of course the Government are right to claim that they have done everything they can to mitigate the position in the development areas. I believe that to be true. I am not an expert in these matters, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is, but I believe that the Government have done much there, and I notice from the figures a rather more even pattern in the level of unemployment than we have seen previously.
None the less, whatever is said about insulation, there is bound to be a spill over into the development areas because of the general restriction on the level of demand. I assume that that was the point made by my hon. Friend, and if I am right in that assumption I must say that I entirely agree with him. Of course it is the case, and it should be said that it is the case.
The coal industry and the steel industry have been mentioned in this debate. I must say that I was rather amazed to hear that the steel industry is now regarded by one hon. Member as one of the older industries, though I do not accept that this is necessarily so. But, of course, the coal industry has run down rather more rapidly than people expected it would. There, again, I must say that the Government have encouraged the run down, and they are right. The Chairman of the National Coal Board sometimes protests that the run down is too rapid, but I do not agree. But I do not agree, either, with the Government's refusal to defend their own policy. They have run down the coal industry rather more rapidly, but that is only part of the answer.
My hon. Friend is right in supposing that the run down is not the only, or the primary, cause of the unemployment

in his region. The primary cause is the general restriction on demand. Is this the Government's policy? Of course it is. I do not see how anybody could suppose that anything else was. Sometimes as I sit here or elsewhere and listen to speeches made on this theme, I wonder whether I am mad or whether everyone else is. Whether one can really approve of the strategy of devaluation, whether one can really approve the enormous sum taken out of the domestic economy by the last Budget—the largest ever, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer always says; whether one can approve of all that, will the means and then reject the end, whether one can wave an Order Paper in approval of a Budget speech and cheer devaluation, and then on the Floor of the House condemn the present level of unemployment, I do not know, but I do know that the two are absolutely causally connected—

Mr. Michael Foot: Once we get the 6 per cent. increase which the T.U.C. plan puts forward we would have sufficient resources, as that plan calculates, to deal with the balance of payments, with more to distribute generally. We would, of course, have to take some steps to see that imports did not go up too much. So this is the alternative to the policy that my hon. Friend advocates with such brilliance—and he might make an even more brilliant speech if he were defending a better policy.

Mr. Walden: I am flattered by my hon. Friend's view, but I will come to the so-called alternative. My hon. Friend knows very well—since we are discussing speeches made in Committee—that just after devaluation I said in Committee that we would not get 6 per cent. He knows that the constant criticism I make of the Government is that they will make over-optimistic claims that then hang round their necks. I wish that they would not, but nothing I can say or do persuades them not to do it. We had another example this evening, and we have had it again in the country. The Government are incorrigible. They cannot help taking the most optimistic figure they can find and then propagating it as a certainty.
I did not say that we could get this 6 per cent. I did not think that we would have a surplus this year—and I am by no means certain that we shall


have a surplus next year. I take a gloomy view, on the whole, but not as gloomy a view as that taken by the party opposite. I think that devaluation will work, and that we will have very real and significant benefits, but the one thing we shall not have is what my hon. Friend calls "full employment".
Do not let us forget that in the recent past the term "full employment" was bogus. We had a job for everyone, or almost for everyone who wanted one, but we had it on a false exchange rate for the £. That is not now in dispute. I had this point of view as early as anyone, as my hon. Friend will gladly admit.
Secondly, we had it in uncompetitive prices for exports. That is not the only factor which affects exports, but everyone admits that we were over-priced in the export market. This needs to be said from these benches more than from the benches opposite. We had it on the basis of profound over-manning of certain industries and jobs being done which ought not to have been done. I want hon. Members to look at the most distressing figures which this country can produce in the most modern industries such as transport equipment, electrical machinery and chemicals. Look at what it rakes us in men to produce identical output as our competitiors. Hon. Members can find all the references for this. If they have not seen them already, they will be shocked when they do see them.
This is not concerned only with a comparison with the United States. Look at our figures for steel in comparison with those for Italy, and for chemicals in comparison with Sweden. We have appalling over-manning in this country. I have never seen any evidence to shake my believe about that. That is why I agree with modernisation and that full employment of the recent past has been bogus. Of course it is possible to provide every man with a job if we take no account of the general economic value of what he does, blind ourselves to the export position and are indifferent to economic costs and care not at all about what happens to balance of payments.
Some of my hon. Friends and many outside, if they were really frank about it, would say that this is exactly their view—that everyone should have a job,

be provided with some work and then we should look at the figures which should be made to respond. My hon. Friend said that employment should be the cornerstone of our policy, but, even if none of my reasons has substance, I think my hon. Friends will at least accept one piece of reality. That is that the Government are not going to change their policy. Whether they agree with my reasons or not, they will not at this stage accept the charter or any other alternatives. It is the policy we have and they are going to keep it. There are good reasons why they should. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says it is too pessimistic.

Mr. Dickens: I said fatalistic.

Mr. Walden: That seems not altogether different. My hon. Friend is wholly optimistic about the value of paper programmes, resolutions, alternatives, speeches at Labour Party conferences. He knows at heart, if he would face it, that the Government have set themselves on a course from which they will not move.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Policy has been changed before.

Mr. Walden: Certainly peripheral policy in respect of east of Suez. It could be changed again despite the view of the Financial Secretary that our defence commitments are essential, and we could save the money on that. We can change the rate of the £, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said, but he will remember—he and I were both devaluationists—that we always said that it was bound to happen because of the logic of the situation.
The logic of the situation is that the Government will not change their policy, and my hon. Friend has given the very reasons. I do not say that he is right. I do not believe in conspiracy theories. That is another fault of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West; he is given to that view of life. If, however, he is right, what possible chance is there now that having guarantees of that kind, they will be taken up and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must address the Chair.

Mr. Walden: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What chance is there now that


they will swim out on a wholly alien sea with the world monetary situation as unstable as it is, with sterling only recently bailed out from what could have been a serious crisis, with, on the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, a world hostile at best, possibly bitterly hostile, to the kind of proposals that he suggests? Can he really see the Government, at this stage, suddenly making a departure of that kind— [An HON. MEMBER: "Or any Government."]—or, indeed, any Government, but certainly not the present one?

Mr. Dickens: I did not say that the Government were faced with a world hostile to democratic Socialism. I said that foreign bankers were hostile to it. I merely remind my hon. Friend that even with the present Government, even with some of the personnel in the Government, there is always the prospect that with the mounting demand for change, voiced by the T.U.C., by many of us on these benches, by theGuardian and other sources, we can in time get the Government to move towards a position where their policies are changing, not overnight, not dramatically, but as part of a phased exercise over a period of years.

Mr. Walden: If my hon. Friend waits for that, he will have fallen for one of the confidence tricks of the Left. They wait until the situation has inevitably undergone the change that is bound to occur.
I am not saying that we will have these unemployment figures for ever. Then when it happens, when the Government take the brakes off, the Left will say, "There you are. That was because of the insistent pressure we applied in the House of Commons, inTribune and all the rest." If my hon. Friend sits around and does nothing, if he waits, makes no speeches and contains his soul in patience, he will find that by the autumn of next year the unemployment figures are well down. So that if he wants for the Government to phase it out slowly, I can predict for him a great success. He or his friends will be able to claim that his constant advocacy has forced these changes upon the Government.
It is important to say this, because this situation, perhaps in a slightly different form, but, I suspect, even in its present form, may well be true again. My hon. Friend knows, and I know, that he can get no changes this autumn and this winter. The difference between us is that I do not think that we ought to have those changes anyway. I will say why. I cannot think of anything that is more likely to cause a run on the £, indeed a general lack of confidence among all our creditors and a complete rejection by the economic community—not the financial community—than that we should at this stage domestically reflate.
I could bombard the House with quotations but I will give only one, because it happens to be a very good one. Sam Brittan, at present the economics editor of theFinancial Times, the great critic of Treasury policy, the man who fought hardest for the Department of Economic Affairs to be set up, and the consistent supporter of full exployment, said not long ago that anybody who does not understand that domestic reflation now would be a disaster is incapable of learning anything from experience. I reiterate it. Anyone who supposes that the Government at this stage should pump money in to put people back to work not as a result of an export-led boom but simply because of a rise in home demand, anyone who imagines that that is the solution, is incapable of learning anything from experience. That is exactly what I do not want the Government to do.
There is unemployment in Birmingham, though I grant that it is not as great as in Ebbw Vale.

Mr. Orme: And it is rising.

Mr. Walden: And it is rising, as my hon. Friend says. The unemployed in Birmingham worry as much and feel all the psychological pressures which unemployed people do. I know something about that, because it is an experience which was common in my own family. They have all the problems which the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale have. But I beg the Government not to reflate domestically in order to soak this unemploymnt up on a temporary basis—for that is what it would be. When the crisis comes back,


and come back it will if we do it that way, we shall have the unemployment all over again, except that it will be a much deeper trough and it will be that much harder to rediscover confidence. And, by the way, it will not be this side of the House which will be given the job of rediscovering that confidence.
Those are the stakes. I know that my hon. Friends wish that our country's situation was different and they honestly believe that if their policies had been followed all through it would have been different. I know that they really believe that it is possible to create a well regulated purely national economy which can largely insulate itself from movements elsewhere, and that it can all be done on the basis of very high rates of growth —the 6 per cent. my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West spoke about—with full employment, and at the same time, by savings on defence and on the export of capital, and, if necessary, by mobilising the dollar portfolio, they can preserve that full employment, the high rate of growth and the balance of payments.
I do not accept that, but it is late at night and I have gone on too long as it is. I shall not explain my reasons now. All I say to my hon. Friends is that they have not got a hope in hell of the Government changing their policy in that way. What the Government must do is see the export boom go ahead. The most sensible question which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West asked was whether there were any calculations of what every additional £100 millions of export business meant in terms of unemployment. That is the relevant question, for that is where we shall see things develop, until such point as the Government think that the balance of payments can stand a certain degree of reflation.
I do not suppose that the Government, who have never been ruthlessly consistent, to say the least, in any of their economic policies, intend to be ruthlessly consistent about this one either. Directly they think that the balance of payments can stand the strain, they will allow a certain measure of domestic reflation. They will allow home demand to run on a bit. It is relevant to ask, therefore, what we are doing in export performance, and how much that export performance

is soaking up labour which evists in this country, and is meant to exist in this country, for the purpose of exporting, for the purpose of a greater export effort and not for the purpose of raising the general level of home demand.
That is the reality of the situation. I often wonder what my hon. Friends below the Gangway think they are doing when they initiate debates of this kind. It is a most valuable kind of debate to have, and I listened with the greatest interest to at least two of the speeches which were made. But what exactly do they want. Are we really living in the age of pledges? Do my hon. Friends who read out so many quotations of which the Government should rightly be ashamed want to add another quotation to the list, do they want somebody to give them a promise at the Dispatch Box that the unemployment figure will be such and such by Christmas to shut them up for a few months, until they read the unemployment figure at Christmas and realise that what was bound to happen has happened.
I do not understanding the logic of this kind of approach. If my hon. Friends cannot accept Government economic strategy—and Government economic strategy is the most important thing in British politics—they should bring the Government down. It is no real defence to say that they do not want to do that because they dislike the alternative even more. The only sensible thing one can do is what the American gamblers tell one to do—put up or shut up, bring the Government down or back them. I do not understand the extraordinary pose of being for the Government as people but against their policy, nor do I believe that from men who talk so much about the morale of the movement in the country it does anything to improve the morale of our people in the country. They must be very confused to hear by hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale say that the Prime Minister's economic defence policies are the worst that could be devised, except for those of the Leader of the Opposition, which is hardly much recommendation, and that the Prime Minister is of all men the man he most wishes to give his loyalty to as leader of the country. They must wonder what my hon. Friend to trying to say. I think that I know.

Mr. Michael Foot: I have never said anything quite like that in my life. All that I say about the Prime Minister—and I do not pay any exaggerated compliments—is that I prefer him to the hon. Gentleman's candidate.

Mr. Walden: That enables me to do something which illustrates a rule of my hon. Friend—that these things should be said on the Floor of the House. I am glad that he made that interjection. It enables me to say that my hon. Friend does not know who my candidate is.

Mr. Mendelson: I do.

Mr. Walden: It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale has been under a persistent misapprehension about this. Despite his support and my opposition, the Prime Minister of this country will go on being the Prime Minister. The difference between us is that whatever I think of some of my right hon. Friend's performances I support his policy, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale does not. I think that that gives me a right to be a critic of certain other aspects which do not entirely meet with my approval. One that I keep referring to is the constant over-confidence of statements from the Government Front Bench. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will avoid that tonight by giving us a frank and careful analysis—and no pledges, I beg him. He must make sure, as I am sure he will, that nobody else gives any pledges, especially just before the Labour Party conference, which is the time of the year when they tend to be made. Here I am being quite serious. I agree with what several hon. Members on both sides have said in this and a previous debate. If that is done there is a real chance that we shall pull out of this difficulty.
We talk about full employment as Labour Party policy. Surely it is the policy of all sensible men. There can be nobody in the House who wishes to see men out of work if they can be employed meaningfully doing jobs that give greater economic strength to the country. I do not believe that there is any Conservative who can be so foolish as to want men unemployed for the sake of it, for the sake of having a statistic. I do not think that full employment is

solely a Labour Party policy, although I think that in the past the Labour Party was much more constructive in the way it went about it. It embraced Keynesianism rather more rapidly than hon. Members opposite did, though even that is a matter of controversy. I do not believe that full employment should be a matter of political controversy. All sensible men can see the need for full employment provided the price paid is not a much greater and more savage deflation, and much worse unemployment later on. That seems to me to be the way we should discuss these issues.
We ought to have things done to even out trouble in the regions. That is good policy. We ought to urge the Government, when they have the base on which to move, to take the brakes off our home demand or even consider import controls and to soak up by domestic reflation some of the unemployment.
We ought also in the Labour Movement to accept the responsibilities of government, accept that the sun will not shine every day, that our supporters cannot have their hearts' desire every week, that no Government can ensure for them total security every year of their lives, that we live in an age of enormous change—many of the changes listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewi-sham, West—and that these changes are bound to involve hardship, insecurity and unemployment, and that on top of it all the Government are fighting for economic stability and that unemployment will be made much worse everywhere.
We ought to accept that, and we ought to tell our people that, and we ought not to ask the Government for unrealistic and potentially dangerous pledges. The Government ought to say that frankly to their supporters. They ought not to play the "two balls in the air at the same time" game. They ought not to put Treasury policy in one compartment and employment policy in another compartment and pretend that the two do not relate to each other. They ought to give a frank, intellectual and respectable case to which men can give their loyalty, and not saw the branch off behind them when they try to give some justification for what they are doing.
That is what the Government ought to do, and if they did that and my hon.


Friends and I did the other the end of unemployment would come that sooner, and the morale of the Labour Party in the country would not, contrary to what is often said, go lower—I do not know how it could go lower—but would go higher. What people can understand and what they think is intellectually respectable they often defend even if it is against their interest. What they will not defend is a situation which they do not like; and which is not explained honestly to them anyway.
So I hope we shall all attempt to co-operate not only to get rid of unemployment but to explain why we have it and how long it will go on, and that it is the policy of the Government and not just that of the Treasury, that the Cabinet has agreed to it and will go on agreeing to it, and that any pledges to the contrary extracted in moments of temporary difficulty are worthless and no hon. Member should spend his time trying to get them.

1.43 a.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I came into the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—to listen, and I have heard it all and have not found it unrewarding. It was not until the end of the speech by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) that I felt inclined to intervene. My resolve to do so was strengthened by the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden).
I leave out the one intervening speech by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), save to say that he was right to remind the House that it is wrong to look at the question of unemployment purely on a regional basis and feel that we can explain it by referring to the development areas. He was right to point out that there are pockets of unemployment anywhere and right to emphasise that one cannot think about it purely in terms of figures. If one is the person unemployed, the figure is 100 per cent. It is not just a matter of regions.
The hon. Member for Honiton was right also to point out that it is not just a matter of the decline of old trades, like mining, as we were told by the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee), who came in and spoke and then went off back, we presume,

to the North-East whence he appeared to have come.
It seems to me not surprising that we have not had many contributions from this side of the House on this subject. As I reminded the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) during his speech, at the time of the July measures in 1966 the Prime Minister's words, as I recollect, were that unemployment would reach a level which hon. Members would not find intolerable. I thought then, and I think now, that the degree of toleration exhibited towards different levels of unemployment in different parts of the House would differ very markedly if one knew what it was. We have not heard from the Conservative Party what is a tolerable level of unemployment. We have heard expressions of resentment about the level in certain areas, but we have heard no estimate of what would be regarded as tolerable—nor have we heard that figure from hon. Members opposite. We heard details from the Minister about advance factories and development certificates, but there were no prophecies, no estimates and no statements of intention. Of course, we have been told that that would be the wrong way to do it, but surely the whole business of politics is to predict the future effects of present actions—and that is what we are trying to do about unemployment.
There is no point in my going over many matters which have been discussed at length. I agree with much that has been said. I agree largely with the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and I will not repeat them but will concentrate on a narrow issue which has not been adequately debated. Whatever other hon. Members regard as tolerable I take the view that a situation in which one able-bodied person who is willing to work but for whom there is no work is intolerable. If a person's capacity is not being used, he is being wasted—and it is waste which we cannot afford.
The hon. Member for All Saints spoke about the full employment which we have had as being bogus, much of it produced by over-manning, and he repudiated the idea of his hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) that full employment must be a cornerstone of policy. I believe that we must for


a moment look at the situation in a slightly different way. I believe that if we are to achieve the results which we want, full employment is a "must". Many of the points which the hon. Member made in his interesting speech arose not from full employment but from the fear of unemployment which was one of the consequences of the announcement of the July measures. Once the Prime Minister had resurrected the spectre of unemployment, he had also raised the uncertainties and fears which have bedevilled the trade union movement for the last 30 years. One of the tragedies of the trade union movement in this country is that it has tended to waste a great deal of its time, energy and enthusiasm purely on short-term gains. That is because it has grown up in an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty in which inevitably it looked to the short term because the longer term could not be predicted with any accuracy. If a union did not know whether its members would have jobs at all in another month or two months, it had to direct its attention to what it could get for its members this week and next week. I should like to see the trade unions playing a much more dynamic and constructive rôle in industry, protecting the prosperity of their members by safeguarding the long-term interests of the trade to which they belong.
The period of full employment which we had had—interrupted by what happened between 1961 and 1963, but that was relatively short—had begun to have an effect. Looking at the trade union movement fairly closely, as I did, I noticed a difference in their attitude. I had felt that at least some trade unionists who had been inclined to take a reactionary view towards progress were beginning to look at things in new ways. One was beginning to hear trade unionists talking about the possible benefits of two men doing the work of four as long as there was other work for the other two. They began to talk genuinely and regularly about machines being valuable things instead of being threats to their security. They began to talk of new ways of working to the benefit of their members and of the community as a whole.
Yet, with one sentence in this Chamber, the Prime Minister destroyed all

that and sent them scuttling back to their old entrenched positions. A whole lot of old ideas suddenly seemed up to date—not because they were up to date but because the Prime Minister had put the clock back by bringing back the atmosphere of fear and insecurity which had done so much to hold up the development of sensible and efficient industrial relations in the past.
There is what one might call the "philosophical" concept of having a pool of unemployment which would mean flexibility and the ability to keep people at the job. It would, it is claimed, be an incentive, a big stick. But it has precisely the reverse effect. Industrial unrest arises not where there is full employment but where there is unemployment because it is insecurity which tends to make people oversensitive and anxious about their security and to make them take up entrenched positions. If we want to get rid of industrial unrest, we must get rid of the unemployment which leads to it.
Liberals utterly reject the concept that there is a peculiar economic necessity for a pool of unemployment with which constantly to threaten people when there is any kind of unrest. We shall not get industry functioning efficiently, get expansion, a rising standard of living and a favourable balance of trade until we get full employment. We must get rid of the delusion that the way to achieve these objectives is by having a pool of unemployment.
We have heard a great deal about the declining coal industry. Quite apart from economic grounds, on social grounds alone we should be saying that it is no longer acceptable that men should be burrowing underground in search of coal. But hon. Members opposite have talked of these wonderful people in the coal industry and all the hardships they undergo, the risks they run and the injuries and diseases they contract and then say that it is intolerable that the industry should be allowed to decline. Insecurity and lack of a clear idea of the alternatives causes the apparent attachment to mining. If the miners are to accept the need for change and if there is to be retraining and redeployment, there must be full employment.

Mr. Walden: The Government are not following their present policy in this


matter so that they can threaten people. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why wage rates have tended to rise rapidly in periods of high unemployment and why, if such a fear of insecurity exists, the productivity figures are the best since the war?

Dr. Winsfanley: Productivity depends on many things, management perhaps more than labour. What matters from the productivity point of view is not the number of people employed but the work those employed are doing. A person doing useless work is just as wasted as a person unemployed. If we are to get rid of overmanning, there must be security so that people do not take up entrenched positions and so maintain thestatus quo.
The hon. Member for All Saints asked the Government to say frankly that the present policy would continue. I ask them to say equally frankly that it will not continue and that they will do everything they can to reduce unemployment. The mood of the people concerned depends not so much on predictions as on the objectives and the aims. While statements are being made by the Bank of England and others about tolerable levels of unemployment and while those statements are not being repudiated by the Government, people cannot be blamed for thinking that the Government intend to maintain a pool of unemployment. If the Government said frankly that they aim to reduce unemployment quickly, many of the existing problems would disappear.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I agree with much that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) has said. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) rather took me and my hon. Friends to task, in a friendly but severe fashion. I do not criticise him for that, because I shall give it back in kind. He asked why we had initiated the debate, and then said that he did not complain that we had done so. We have done so because, as Socialists, we are not prepared to tolerate unused capacity in a modern, technological society. That is what a Labour Government is about—a planned economy. We are not an island—no man is an island, as John Donne said. There are external pressures upon us, but it is

possible to organise the type of society that can rid us of unemployment.
Everyone pays lip-service to full employment, but we find that there are different standards. It is becoming fashionable to talk about it as being about 2 per cent, to 2½ per cent. It is being written into the terminology of full employment, but we are not having it. Full employment means what it says. The Prime Minister said in 1966, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, that after redeployment, the level of unemployment would be 1½ per cent. to 2 per cent. That incensed us, and it is not satisfactory.
My hon. Friend the Member for All Saints, talks passionately, almost demagogically—which tended to spoil his usual eloquence. We are talking about human beings, not machines, about people thrown on the scrap-heap of society, treated like machines. This creates anxieties in an already complicated society. We in this House know better than most, the pressures upon our constituents as society becomes increasingly complicated. There can be no greater anxiety than the threat of losing one's livelihood, and with it one's self-respect, regardless of whether it is in Ebbw Vale, Birmingham, Lewisham or Salford. It does not matter whether the figure is 2 per cent. or just under, as it is in my area, or going up to 2 per cent., as it is in Birmingham, or just over 4 per cent., as it is in Ebbw Vale. It is the individual who is concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for All Saints made a great defence of the Government's policy. He said that the Government should advocate it. Does my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State agree with him? Will he underwrite his magnificent speech in support of Government policy? I have heard my hon. Friend defend the Government's economic policy before, but, unfortunately, it has not always been right. We are in a difficult position because it is wrong. My hon. Friend has advocated changes in the past to that policy. He mentioned some tonight—east of Suez, the rate of the £, and so on. But I do not think my hon. Friend can avoid the question consistently posed in this debate: Can we resolve our problems without resorting to unused capacity as advocated by Paish and other people?

Mr. Walden: My answer is, "Yes, given time and given the right pace". The issue is what the Government will do this year and next year, not the general issue of whether we can have full employment. I agree with my hon. Friend on that.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend says, "Yes, given time". But the situation is getting far more serious and unemployment is rising. My hon. Friend talks eloquently about what we should be telling our supporters in the country. They are telling us in far more eloquent terms what they think of the policy which has put us in our present position. That is what I want changed.
A unique economic situation is developing. We are getting what is known as technological unemployment. At a time when unemployment is rising, production is rising because of the nature of industry. In certain industries, particularly in export industries such as the car industry, increased production is reflected to a large extent. This point was made by Eric Wigham inThe Times on 19th July. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) talked about the T.U.C. going for a production target of 6 per cent. Production is rising at a far higher rate than was anticipated by the Government when they talked about 3 per cent. According to the index published on Wednesday, production during the first five months of the year was nearly 6 per cent. higher than it was during the corresponding period of 1967. That is not a 6 per cent. growth for the year but a rapidly increasing growth in a specific period. On the other hand, unemployment is still rising, particularly among people in the older industries and among unskilled and many semi-skilled people.
The mid-July figure is 514,000. I am glad that an hon. Member for Northern Ireland has entered the Chamber. The figure for Northern Ireland used to be included, but the figures are now split. If the figure for Northern Ireland of 36,000 is added, the total is 550,000, which is the highest figure since the July, 1940, figure of 827,000. In July we take up many people who can be employed in many occupations temporarily or part time. The percentage for the country is 2·2. For Northern

Ireland it is 7·1 per cent., a scandalously high level which should not be tolerated by any Government. The situation is very distressing.
On 25th June I attended the Press Gallery lunch at which Aubrey Jones, speaking about unemployment, said:
For the first time for a long time, possibly for the first time ever, output per head in this country has increased whilst employment has decreased. Over the whole course of 1967 the increase in output per head from one quarter or another rose from 1·5 per cent. in the first quarter to 3·8 per cent. in the last quarter, while unemployment decreased throughout the entire year.
Aubrey Jones was speaking about 1967. We have now moved into the post-devaluation period. His figures are now confounded by the fact that the phenomenon has developed that there are rising production and rising unemployment.
This has serious implications for the future. This is why the T.U.C. met the Government recently and asked for action by a Labour Government, because if the figures are like this for July what will they be like in the autumn and in December? The Treasury never make forecasts on these matters, because nobody knows. We might have a severe winter, which we have not had for a couple of years, and this could cause much unemployment in the construction industry. Without that, if this trend is not turned down it could easily be 750,000 which would be very serious.
We have to take into account that many of the Budget proposals have yet to bite in our economy. Some are beginning to take effect. Prescription charges are just being implemented—again another form of taking purchasing power. Selective Employment Tax, which is to be increased in the autumn, will be another decisive factor in many of the industries which will be vulnerable from the point of view of maintaining full employment. This is the situation facing us.
The question posed both by the Government and, in a more extreme form, by my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints is: what action do we take to prevent it? Do we, as it were, stop the Government achieving what looks like being economic success by immediately injecting into the economy a form of build up of steam to create purchasing


power to create jobs and offset the problem of rising unemployment?
Before dealing with that matter I want to deal with the questions facing industry and the points that have been raised about the efficiency or inefficiency of British industry. I do not believe that British industry is as inefficient as has been made out. Of course there are weaknesses and faults. We did not have the whole of our industry destroyed during the last war, as did West Germany or Italy, and have to rebuild on a new industry. Within my own constituency and the Trafford Park area there is the giant A.E.I. factory. One finds brand new modern technological factories side by side with 19th century industries. So British industry is not at a constant level; it has a mixed capacity.
British industry has many facets. It has a great deal of skill and training within it. It is upon that skill that the life of this country depends. My hon. Friend spoke about overmanning as one of the major problems. We will not get rid of overmanning by fear or by threats, but by full employment, growth, and having a situation whereby industries can go in for investment and replace new machinery by going for low unit costs. This is the way to create the situation within industry which removes the fear of unemployment.
One hears talk about trade unions and so forth. People fight for jobs. Whether it is a fitter working in a factory in Salford or Mr. Cecil King on the Board of the I.P.C., every man fights for his job at the end of the day, because it is something to which, for very sound reasons, he clings. If we want to change this attitude in the sense of creating a new atmosphere, we will create it within growth, within planning and within an acceptance of the right to work—and a Labour Government can create the conditions and climate for that acceptance.
The Amalgamated Engineering and Foundryworkers' Union, which I think is recognised as one of the key unions in the key manufacturing industries of this country, has a policy of the right to work based on not being prepared to concede that rationalisation or modernisation, which is not always rationalisation, is in the interests of better

production. It does not always mean that because we close factories down and amalgamate and move them about from different areas we are necessarily creating more efficient industries. It has a policy of the right to work until alternative employment is found for its workers, whether they happen to be working in Wales, in the North-East, or anywhere else. Can anyone blame them? My hon. Friend the Member for All Saints should not be obsessed with this argument that everything is resolved by efficiency, and that we must all become little Japanese workers to succeed. I do not accept that. Our figures for production per man hour are not the best in the world, but they are by no means the worst. There are countries with better figures than ours, but there are many developed countries whose figures are much worse than ours. There are many reasons why we cannot be at the top of the league.
What can we do to deal with this problem? My hon. Friends and I have been accused of putting forward defensive policies, but we are in very good company.The Times this morning said that whilst import controls had not been accepted they might have to be introduced, and on the question of the outflow of capital from this country the Cambridge Report said:
The long-term capital outflow has shown very large fluctuations in recent years. From a record £374 million in 1964 it came down to only £26 million last year; but in the first quarter of 1968 alone it was £148 million.
The wealth going out has been created by our engineers, by those in manufacturing industry, and by other workers. This money is too precious to be allowed to go out of the country to be invested in South Africa, in Australia, and so on.
Despite the improved export figures, we are still sucking in to many imports of manufactured and semi-manufactured goods for the health of the nation. Secondly, purchasing power is not evenly spread. This is why so many of us tried to tell the Government that the prices and incomes policy should not be the central theme of the economy. The Government ought to do other things instead of wasting their time, skill and effort on this sort of thing. They must take action to deal with the uneven spread

of purchasing power which makes it possible for some sections of the community to buy the imported goods to which I have referred. I am glad that a Treasury Minister is to reply to the debate. I hope that he will deal with some of the points which have been raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for All Saints says that it is impossible for anybody in the Labour Movement to talk about unemployment without putting his hand on his heart and saying, "I have been unemployed," or "I come from a family which suffered from the effects of unemployment," and that that sort of thing has become folk-lore. I do not think there is anything wrong in that. We may have some sacred cows in the Labour movement; there may be some things that some may feel we cling to long after the need for them has gone—

Mr. Dickens: Like full employment.

Mr. Orme: Full employment is something that, as trade unionists, we demand. To think that in 1968 we would be debating the philosophy of it with a Labour Government is almost inconceivable, when we realise that going back to the 1960s and even up to the 1964 election it would not have been on the agenda; it was not considered to be a subject for argument.
I am not making this point in a demagogic manner, or making an appeal to the emotions. It is already an emotional issue. It is something that the people that I represent demand, and in the areas where it does not exist the fact is reflected by the words and actions of the people in no uncertain terms.
I hope that the Minister will tell the Chancellor that we shall not tolerate a situation in which we are expected to be patient and accept a policy based on what we consider to be outmoded economic theories. We shall insist on a policy of growth, expansion and full employment.

2.26 a.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) made a useful suggestion. He said that we might sometimes copy the procedure and custom of the United States Congress and read certain points into the record. I should

much prefer to put to my right hon. Friend's face a point that concerns the coal industry in my area, but he is no longer here, so I have to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion and read it into the record.
My right hon. Friend talked about the coal industry in certain areas and said that we had not yet been able to provide for the arrival of new industries before pits were closed. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will read HANSARD tomorrow and will remember that when he was Minister of Fuel and Power and was in charge of the coal industry he spoke from the Front Bench in a debate on the industry and I interrupted him and asked him to give a certain pledge. My hon. Friend the Member for All Saints expressed his contempt for pledges this evening, but I cannot avoid using the word because my right hon. Friend used the word at the time. I asked for a pledge that there would be a general staff composed of senior Cabinet Ministers—the Minister of Housing, the Minister of Labour, as he then was, and the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs—meeting every week to consider the decline in certain of the old coalmining areas, so as to arrange for new industries to be sent to those areas before pit closures took place.
I remember turning to the Tory benches—which then included some notable criticis of the mining community; I am glad to say that a good many of them did not come back after the ensuing election—and saying that my right hon. Friend would not be intimated by the jeers of hon. Members opposite. I asked my right hon. Friend to spend public money in seeing that the miners were employed until the new industries could be set up in their areas. My right hon. Friend gave the House a pledge that there would be a general staff; that the Ministers would meet every week, and that this policy would be pursued—but he told us this evening that this was a problem that the Government had not been able to solve. He is two years behind with his own policy.
That is what I wanted to write into the record. That is one reason why we have had such disastrous results as Caerphilly. There, the pits are being closed, and there is an unemployment level of 8 per cent. It was the pit closures


and the 8 per cent. of unemployment that produced that miserable result at Caerphilly, and which, if it occurred in other similar areas would produce a first-class defeat for our Government, which we would all hate to see, and let in the Tories by default, not because anyone wanted to embrace their policies but because they did not approve of what was being done. That is the danger that faces us.
The main case has already been made by my hon. Friends, with whose policies I very largely identify myself. This debate was absolutely essential, because we have now, against the expectations and the predictions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a rising trend in unemployment, although he told us at the time of devaluation and in his Budget speech that, whilst he could not promise a rapid decline in unemployment for the rest of 1968, it would begin slightly in the second half of this year and would accelerate in 1969.
We are facing the opposite position tonight. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints that although we cannot change the Government's policy overnight—certainly not in this debate and certainly not in the absence of the right hon. Gentlemen the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are still doing a very useful job.
It is not simply that here we have a group of members of the General Council of the T.U.C., and a number of economic experts criticising Government policy and saying that we must not allow this misuse of resources to go on, because this is what unemployment means. The United Kingdom will fall behind economically rather than advance if that were to happen and we did not persuade the Government to adopt a different policy. Then time passes, and the Government adopt the new policy, and my right hon. Friend says that we are all very foolish— and he must include the General Council of the T.U.C., he must not just confine himself to his poor colleagues sitting with him on these benches—to say when change does occur that we brought it about.
Those of us who sit here below the Gangway are very cautious about claiming to have brought about anything at

all. But it would be equally foolish to do as he suggested and shut up. Again, that advice must include the General Council of tthe T.U.C. and the trade union movement generally, because the Government are not prepared to accept our policy immediately.
The purpose of the debate is to put on record before the House rises for the Summer Recess that there are hon. Members who regard this trend as being very dangerous and urge the Government to change course so that the present dangerous trend shall not continue. We should be failing in our duty to shut up on this occasion because we have not had a guarantee that the President of the Board of Trade, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Prime Minister, or the Cabinet as a whole will change course this morning, as it now is.
This is the great trend in unemployment. It is this great danger that makes it the duty of hon. Members to debate the subject properly. I would go further, and say that the Government should appreciate that, having failed in their duty to find time for an economic debate before the House rises, they will be pressed to have such a debate as soon as we return, with unemployment as the central piece of the debate. Of course I understand why the Leader of the Opposition did not want to have a debate on this subject now. He has been going around the country talking so much economic nonsense that he did not want to face either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a debate today. That he has been irresponsible does not mean that the rest of us should be irresponsible.
My hon. Friend the Member for All Saints spoke like an iron chancellor this evening. He put forward a stern concept. It is one of the characteristics of these economists returning to pre-Keynesian economics to speak like iron chancellors. They say, "You sentimentalists have been arguing since the 1930s that unemployment is a misuse and waste of our resources and that it is socially undesirable, but all the time you have overlooked the fact that there are iron rules of economics which put Keynes out of business". My hon. Friend was speaking as sternly as a whole cabinet of iron chancellors, but the Prime Minister has not been doing this.
I asked the Prime Minister some questions recently about the rising trend of unemployment. He did not give the reply of my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints; he agreed with me in a quiet voice that of course the level of unemployment is much too high, but he was not prepared to accept my remedies. I cannot see how he could accept anything else because the Chancellor said that unemployment would be beginning to fall by now.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): rose—

Mr. Mendelson: I shall give way in a minute. I am glad to stir my hon. and learned Friend; it is about time he took part in the debate. The Chancellor said that unemployment would begin to decline. Although the Treasury does not publish estimates of future unemployment, of course it has them and the Chancellor had them. That is why the Prime Minister said that the level was too high. That secret estimate proved false. I will give way to my hon. and learned Friend now. Oh, he is not interested any more. Obviously the Treasury figure has been proved wrong. We have learned by bitter experience not to have too much confidence in Treasury estimates about future trends.
We are facing a very difficult situation in which my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints says there must be higher levels of unemployment if our policy is to work. The Treasury is finding that productivity is going up yet unemployment is not beginning to decline but is going up and they do not know what to do about it. The danger now is that the export-led boom we are all hoping for and which the Chancellor predicted and is working for—this is the meaning of his term, "Two years of hard slog"— is moving too slowly. Unless it is backed up by some reflation at home, not only will the level of unemployment go disastrously high in the next 12 months but it will become a hindrance to our retooling and better preparation for the export-led boom.
My hon. Friend is theoretically completely at fault if he thinks that we can allow unemployment to grow now and concentrate entirely on an export-led boom and that by the end of 1969 we

can solve both our balance of payments problems and our unemployment problems. The Chancellor is being proved wrong in his unpublished estimate. My hon. Friend cannot demand that he should say that that is what he wanted, because what is happening is not what he wanted. My hon. Friend can be stern because he is not responsible for the economic and financial policy of the country, but the Chancellor is. Therefore, the great fallacy—

Mr. Walden: rose—

Mr. Mendelson: I gladly give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: Order, I do not want to discourage interventions, but this is the second of 28 debates, and interventions prolong speeches.

Mr. Mendelson: I am very unfortunate that we have now returned to your stern régime, Mr. Speaker, and that I am not, therefore, allowed to give way even to one intervention. But I accept my fate, as always.
The serious point in which we are involved concerns the fact that our whole policy of an export-led boom may prove inadequate on its own and that we cannot, on grounds of economic policy, allow a runaway situation with a level of unemployment which may reach 750,000 by the end of this year or the beginning of next year and have no further backing for investment.
The great problem has been that private investment has lagged behind. That is common ground. Private investment is beginning to pick up. It is improving in the machine tool industry and some other industries, but in others it is still lagging behind. If it became accepted that there were to be a limited export-led boom but that the Government would do nothing to increase demand at home, many of the people who make their decisions in so many private boardrooms would not make additional investment decisions between now and Christmas. If they did not, we would find that the wastage of resources and, therefore, a growing underlying trend of unemployment would go from bad to worse when we reach 1969.
There are, moreover, certain industries which, in spite of exhortation—the Government can send Ministers to them


every week—will not move in the export market unless they can find a combined domestic and export market which will allow them to have a generally increased, slightly higher rate of profit at the end of their operations. Investment decisions are made not on exhortation but on general policy, as my hon. Friend knows.
It is, therefore, essential for some of those industries to provide encouragement and stimulus for the home market, so that they can be persuaded to go, either for the first time or in a bigger way, into the export market, because they need reduced unit costs and an increased volume of production ail round to make it worth while for them to go into the export market, which, they always say, is costly and needs greatly increased expenditure.
On all these grounds of economic policy, I hope that the Government will not respond to the stern appeal so eloquently made by my hon. Friend. I enjoyed greatly the way he dealt with some of us below the Gangway. I remind the Government, however, that it is not enough for them to be effective, efficient and eloquent in debating contests, because at the end of the road it is not the Members of the House who will make the final decisions. They will be made by the people of Dudley, Caerphilly and All Saints, and, indeed, of Penistone. It will be the judgment of all those people on whether it is acceptable in 1968 and 1969 to have a growing level of unemployment under a Labour Government without the Government taking quick and effective measures to increase home demand to back up the export boom for which we are hoping.
If the Government do not take measures between now and the autumn, and if they allow the unemployment level to rise disastrously, as it is doing, they will receive the verdict of the nation and we will not be able to say that they do not deserve it.

2.44 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: For getting on for four hours we have had a fascinating debate on an important subject. At times, it has appeared from this side of the House as though one was intruding upon or observing a family dispute as various views about the appropriate level of unemployment, various intensities of admiration for the

Prime Minister or different candidates for the leadership of the Labour Party have been run backwards and forwards across the stage. But my task is briefly—you have reminded us, Mr. Speaker, that we are only on the second of our series of debates tonight—to survey both the facts and the prospects for unemployment.
Before coming to that, however, I shall deal with two complaints which have been directed at this side of the House. First, comment has been made about the number of contributions coming from the Opposition—only one from the Conservative Party, in fact, a remarkable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). In reply, I remind hon. Members opposite that yesterday we had a half-day debate on redundancy, a subject of equal importance and of equal concern, one would suppose, to all hon. Members, but on that occasion there was no back-bench contribution from the Labour Party and the whole debate was sustained by this side. I suggest that that more than balances any imbalance tonight.
Second, it was said that the Opposition should have provided time for a full-scale debate on unemployment before the House rose for the Recess. The bulk of time in the House is controlled by the Government, and the first burden, if any, should rest upon them. But this week we faced a situation in which one of the Supply Days was half taken up by opposed Private Business which the Chairman of Ways and Means quite rightly put down, and it was thought that it would be wrong for us to rise without having a debate on the situation in Nigeria, so that was one of the subjects chosen. Then, with only one day left and a large number of subjects as candidates, housing and redundancy seemed to have a great claim. As we have only recently finished our debates on the Finance Bill, my right hon. Friends who are responsible for these matters—I agree with them—felt that a further full-scale debate on the economic situation was not warranted.
I am glad, however, that we have had our debate tonight. In the event, we have had rather more than a half-day debate—or half-night debate. I can understand the reluctance of hon. Members opposite to talk about pledges or forecasts, but I should be failing in my


duty if I did not start by reminding the House of three specific pledges or forecasts which the Government made about the likely level of unemployment at this time of the year.
In the devaluation statement, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said:
Devaluation will start to reduce unemployment, as soon as our exports begin to increase and the exporting industries call for more workers. I expect to see unemployment moving down steadily from the end of the winter onwards."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 937.]
He was followed two days later by the Prime Minister:
… the problem which we shall be facing in a year's time is far more likely to be not deflation and unemployment but expansion to a scale which might lead to labour shortage in many areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 1334.]
At the end of that debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
… there is little doubt that unemployment … will fall away very substantially during the next 12 months, not merely because we move into the spring and summer but also on a seasonally corrected basis, and we shall have a much lower level of unemployment next winter than at the present time."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November; Vol. 754, c. 1439.]
Those forecasts have been made to look increasingly nonsensical by the turn of events, and the present situation is bleak. As the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, at the moment we have a seasonally adjusted total of 581,000, or 2·5 per cent., the highest figure for any month for which the Ministry of Labour has kept such records. That is the improvement that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were promising the House and the country last winter.
The outlook is no better. If the average monthly increase over the past three months is continued to December we shall end up next January with a seasonally-adjusted figure of unemployment of 672,000. If we were to have a figure next January similar to that which we had last January, which few of us would regard as satisfactory, the figure would have to drop by 10,000 a month between now and then. We all know that that will not happen, so the outlook is pretty bleak.
I tempt the fates I suppose, but 1 think that it would be good, with forecasts of 600,000, 700,000 and 750,000 unemployed going around, if the Minister of State could make some sort of forecast. I know that the Government have resolutely refused to do this in the past, but there are precedents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) made just such a forecast when there were similar fears in 1958 about the level of unemployment in the winter to come, and he afterwards had an accolade from the Prime Minister, who said that my right hon. Friend made a brilliant forecast and was right almost to the last decimal point. There is a standard for the hon. and learned Gentleman to live up to.
The House and the country could do with some reassurance about the figures that the Treasury thinks are likely next January and February. One cannot ask them to make allowances for the uncertainties of the weather, but, leaving that aside, I should have thought that they could give some sort of guidance about the way they think things will go, certainly more specifically than the Chancellor did on "Panorama" on 15th July, when he would not commit himself to a figure. He would not even say that 250,000 unemployed was full employment, and he described the figures in the regions at present as disturbing. The figures of unemployment in the Northern Region have doubled since July, 1956, but to the Chancellor they are no more than disturbing, not sufficiently disturbing for him to do anything dramatic about them.

Mr. Dickens: This is all very well, but where do the Tory Opposition stand on the level of unemployment that they want to see? Do they accept the view of the Industrial Policy Group that this country needs a level of 2 per cent. out of work permanently? Let us have a clear statement on that.

Mr. Scott: My reply must be rather like that of the character who when asked how to get to another place replied, "I would not start from here." If I were magically transformed to take over the responsibility, I should not reflate the economy at present. That would certainly not be right, but the overall


economic plans which the Tory Party has, and which it will put into operation when it returns to power, will lead to a completely different method of managing the economy, a completely different attitude towards its management, which will make the hon. Gentleman's question irrelevant. Talk of absolute levels is misleading to an extent. The most disturbing factor about unemployment at present is not the absolute level but the way in which the regions are being severely hit, and the way in which long-term unemployment is increasing, rather than the absolute level. I have already mentioned the way in which unemployment in the Northern Region has doubled in the past two years, and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have done very little better in that period.
In the duration of unemployment the increase has been remarkable. In January, 1967, the number of persons unemployed for eight weeks or more was 50 per cent. of those unemployed. Last month it was 68 per cent. The latest breakdown showing the numbers unemployed for 52 weeks and more—figures for April, 1968—show an increase compared with last year. In April, 1967, 11·2 per cent of them had been unemployed for a year or more, and in April, 1968, the percentage had risen to 15·1. This is one of the most disturbing factors because it operates against any argument that what we are seeing is a real redeployment of labour when the grown of long-term unemployment within these figures is so disturbing.
There are two aspects about the future. We have at the moment a high and rising level of unemployment. In September we are to have a 50 per cent. increase in Selective Employment Tax imposed on industry. This will have an impact on the level of unemployment. Part of the argument for the tax is that it will contribute towards a shake-out from the service industries. Employment in the service industries has been dropping and the Government have claimed that it has been in part due to the impact of Selective Employment Tax, but at the same time employment in the manufacturing industries has been dropping. So it is difficult to argue that there has been any transition from service to manufacturing industry. The most likely thing to happen when Selective Employment Tax is increased by 50 per cent.

is that more people will lose their jobs in the service industries and will not be taken into manufacturing industry where employment is also declining. We want to know what impact this will have on the level of unemployment during the coming winter.
What about the impact of the continuing rise in productivity, which we are all glad to see, on unemployment? In the London and Cambridge Economic Review the point was made clearly that if the continuing upward trend in productivity continues we shall have a continuing upward trend in unemployment unless there is a substantially faster rate of growth than we have or appears likely.
So the voices of hon. Gentlemen opposite have largely condemned the Government, with perhaps one notable exception. They have condemned the performance of the Government and the level of unemployment at the moment. I repeat that it stands at the highest seasonally adjusted figure since records were kept. That is the charge to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has to reply. We should like him to reply to that charge and comment on why the Prime Minister's confident forecasts have come to this State.

2.59 a.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): I shall deal with the heart of the problem and the general problem.
I ought to say something about the reasons which led my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to intervene in the debate earlier. The answer is simple. One of the issues raised was that by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne), who put forward as a subject the position of unemployment in the North-East. My right hon. Friend is specially concerned with that, and it seemed a matter of courtesy that he should be here to reply to the specific points raised by my hon. Friend. I see no reason for criticism in that. He dealt with it, and I thought it was extremely courteous.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I raised the point and perhaps I should explain it. My right hon. Friend did not know that only one hon. Member would raise this issue. He waited to hear only one speech. He


was called, made his speech and immediately walked out, and he has not been seen since. I said, and I repeat, that that is not the normal courtesy which is shown to the House, and I shall let the Prime Minister know about it because I think that it was a disgraceful thing for a Minister to do. Back-bench Members do it, but we do not expect Ministers to do it.

Mr. Taverne: I am sure that the Prime Minister will make careful note of my hon. Friend's representations. As I was to reply to the debate, it seemed to me that my right hon. Friend's intervention was courteous in dealing with a special point.

Mr. Lewis: He should have stayed for the debate. Where is he?

Mr. Taverne: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that this is not the ideal setting for such a debate. We have had a full debate and notable contributions, but it is an unfortunate time of the morning, when one's mind is not always as clear and the points not always as concisely made as at other times. Despite what was said by the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott), it would have been more satisfactory if the Opposition had stuck to their original plan to have a full day's debate on the subject, particularly as the Leader of the Opposition has been making speeches about it outside the house—speeches which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said, it would have been interesting to debate in the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall come to the subject of the debate. I remind the hon. and learned Member and the House that this is the second of 28 debates.

Mr. Taverne: One cannot say that this is a very cheerful subject when there is so much concern on all sides about the higher rates of unemployment as seasonally adjusted. Most hon. Members know what that means in personal terms—not only in material loss but in the psychological loss of someone who is fit for work and is unable to find work.
It is important to know what has happened. There was a rise in unemployment after July, 1966, with a peak in

mid-September and then a gradual decline. But since February the figures have been creeping up again. It is important to find out why and to identify as far as we can the reason for the increase in the figures in February. One should not be categorical about any part of it because one does not necessarily know the explanation. Often one has found that an increase in the unemployment figures has reflected something which happened much earlier.
But in so far as one can identify the factors, I think that there are three at work. The first certainly seems to be the rise in productivity, which has perhaps been stronger than had been expected. With production rising, one had expected to see the figures of employment rising, but they have not risen. A second factor may well be the higher level of imports in the first six months than had been expected. It is true that there was a drop in June, but obviously one cannot expect that to be effective yet. The figures for the first five months were higher than had been expected. One should not want to base too much on the figures for any one month, either when they are too high or when they are much lower than had been expected. To some extent the higher level of imports than had been expected held back the growth of domestic production as well as the employment possibilities.
The third factor, obviously important, has been the post-devaluation strategy of switching resources from home production to export production. Throughout industry locally we have experienced from time to time the phenomenon of restructuring an industry and the local unemployment which has been caused. In a sense we are facing it on a national scale with the attempt to redirect resources. Obviously this cannot be a contemporaneous operation. In most cases it does not happen that one day a man is displaced from a job concerned with home production and on the very next day he steps into a job concerned with production for exports.
Inevitably, a switch of resources is bound to lead to a temporary rise in unemployment. This is to be expected so that the transfer can take place. It was for this reason that more was not done by way of switching resources at an earlier time. My right hon. Friend the


Chancellor of the Exchequer was criticised by hon. Members opposite for not doing more at the time of the public expenditure cuts in January. It is a difficult matter for decision as to whether or not more should have been done then. But one of his reasons was the very sensible one that there was no point in digging a hole that one was not in a position to fill.
If the Opposition's policy had been followed, and more had been done, say, by the use of the regulator in January, in all likelihood the unemployment figures would be higher than they are because export orders could not possibly have taken up the extra capacity created. An article in today'sTimes Business News shows how the export orders coming to the shipbuilding and engineering industries only came forward towards March and April. One did not expect the devaluation effects on export orders to be immediate. Some time-lag has been inevitable and this has been a factor.
A recovery clearly depends on two things—buoyancy of exports and import substitution. The aim is to reduce the level of unemployment. But this must be done through these two ways because the boom which is the way to solving the problems of the regions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale rightly pointed out, is a boom which must depend on an export-led boom. It is no good having a higher rate of growth domestically if it is not founded on a higher export rate of growth. If there is no higher rate of export-led growth to lead such a boom, the impact on the balance of payments can only be disastrous, subject to the import control point to which I shall come later.

Mr. Dickens: Can my hon. and learned Friend give any information of the effect of this export-led boom, in a quantitative sense, on unemployment?

Mr. Taverne: I cannot see how I could possibly be expected to give a quantitative answer. It depends both on increased exports and import savings. The question of how much extra domestic production is created is also involved. One cannot quantify the figure for a given amount of export increase. It is impossible to quantify.
One factor in this situation is productivity. The impact of productivity has been unfavourable in the short term on unemployment, but there is no doubt that it is a favourable development in the longer term, because it will make us more competitive abroad, enable us to export more and enable domestic growth to proceed faster. If we become more competitive through increases in productivity, we are in a better position to compete with foreign imports as well. Import substitution has a better chance to increase and again this creates greater possibility of growth and, therefore, in the longer term, the possibility of reduction in unemployment. So the productivity factor, although in the short term unfavourable in terms of unemployment, in the longer term is likely to have a favourable rather than an unfavourable effect.
I was asked to make forecasts about exports. It has not been customary to make these predictions and, while there may have been a few exceptions, they have been wrong as often as they have been right. The uncertainties are so great that it is hazardous to make forecasts. The export position, which is vital, is one in which the outlook is good. Inquiries made by the C.B.I. about the expectations of exporters give one every reason to expect exports to develop on a rising trend.
I was referred to the Chancellor's statement of last March, in which he said he expected that unemployment would fall. It must be made clear that he was speaking not of the short term but of the working out of the Budget strategy over a period of 12 to 18 months.

Mr. Mendelson: Did the Chancellor expect, when he made that statement, that there would be such a serious increase in unemployment in the second half of the year—this at a time when he was forecasting a reduction in the numbers unemployed?

Mr. Taverne: The Chancellor was talking in terms of the Budget strategy. He would have been extremely rash to predict the unemployment figures for, say, the following two months. The strategy will have to be judged overall.
I want there to be no misunderstanding about the fact that we are all extremely concerned about unemployment,


and particularly its psychological effect. However, to compare the unemployment position now with the position in the past is not, in many ways, valid. Much has been done to cushion the blow and the material position is now quite different from what it was. With the earnings-related unemployment supplementary benefits, redundancy payments, once National Insurance contributions and Income Tax have been taken into account, and so on, people now receive about two-thirds or more of their previous incomes, compared with one-half four years ago. If one has been employed by one's previous employer for five years or more, one can expect a redundancy payment of at least £105. This is of great help, particularly psychologically, in reducing the hardship caused by unemployment.
We recognise that when we need greater mobility and redeployment of labour, the social costs must be met. Despite complaints about the extravagance of redundancy payments and the expense involved in paying them, they are part of the burden which we must meet to deal with the need for greater mobility.
Certain remedies have been suggested and some of my hon. Friends have called for reflation. There is no doubt that if we reflated at this time, irrespective of the growth of exports and subject only to import controls, there would be a worsening of the balance of payments position. This would be totally misguided, because in the long term the effects would be more disastrous than what is happening now. It is essential to our whole strategy that we move as closely as possible to a balance of payments surplus as quickly as possible.
Some of my hon. Friends have suggested the imposition of import controls and the selling of overseas assets. I recommend them to read a speech—it may not have appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I am sure that they read it with interest—made by Lord Balogh in another place. He pointed out that if one sold one's assets, one reduced one's income. He pointed out that import controls, quite apart from the question of retaliation, are a once-for-all remedy, whereas what we face is a persistent problem, a persistent decline over

many years of our share of exports, a persistent increase over the years of manufactured imports. One cannot possibly contemplate progressively increasing import quotas to deal with this. These are once-for-all remedies, and there is no question about this being the way out. The only answer lies in the strategy embedded in the Budget. There is no reason to depart from that strategy and the kind of suggestions which have been made for departing from it would only make matters worse in the long run.

Orders of the Day — 300 GeV ACCELERATOR

3.16 a.m.

Mr. Peter Kirk: In opening this debate on the failure of the Government to take part in the development of the 300 GeV accelerator under the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, I can promise that I will at least be brief. This is not because the subject is unimportant, quite the contrary. It is a matter of very great importance in many directions.
There are two aspects of vital importance. One is the scientific progress, particularly to do with high energy physics, and I freely admit that I am not qualified to speak on that, not only because I have no scientific training, but because I find it difficult to understand the vast implications of these developments. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be able to expatiate on this to a greater extent.
The other aspect, which concerns me, is the political aspect. We are not only concerned with the development of nuclear physics, important though this is; we are also concerned with the relationship between this country and the continent of Europe. It is this which must give rise to the very gravest consideration when one comes to assess the correctness, or otherwise, of the Government's decision not to go ahead with this project.
The European Organisation for Nuclear Research, or C.E.R.N., is one of the most outstanding examples of international co-operation that the continent of Europe has yet produced. It owes nothing, either to the Treaty of Rome or any of the other treaties, nor


to bodies like the Council of Europe, or Western European Union. It is self-sufficient and has been so successful that it has probably a unique achievement to its credit. It has created a "brain drain" in reverse.
I do not just mean that it has kept on this side of the Atlantic scientists who would otherwise have been lost to the United States, but it has attracted scientists from the United States, now working at Geneva on the 28 GeV accelerator. Last September, as a member of the Scientific and Technological Committee of the Council of Europe, I had the privilege, with the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) of visiting this project. I regret that there are so few non. Members opposite, but it is understandable at this hour. Had the right hon. Member been here, he would have agreed with me that we were much impressed by the work done, and planned there. It was made plain that the work to be done on the 28 GeV would not be sufficient to keep them going and that they had to move into a new sphere —as the Minister will know, the 300 GeV accelerator, which will be the largest of its type in the world.
It is true, as someone pointed out in a letter toThe Times a fortnight ago, that it would not necessarily remain the largest in the world for any length of time. The Americans are developing a 200 GeV which they could double in capacity if they felt like going ahead with it. Nevertheless, it would be a considerable achievement for European science. Scientifically, it is a matter of considerable importance, but much more it is a matter of practical European international co-operation of a kind which those of us who support the Government's policy of approaching as near as they can to Europe believe should be welcomed. Therefore, it is all the more regrettable that the Government have decided not to go ahead with this project.
It is not too much to say that the Government's decision has caused immense dismay throughout the scientific community in this country. One has only to read, not only journals like theNew Scientist, but the correspondence columns ofThe Times to realise that scientists generally regard this as a body blow— and with some reason. But I am more concerned with the effect it has had out-

side this country where it has been regarded, not just as a body blow to European co-operation, but as the denial of all the fair words which the Government have been saying for many months about technological co-operation with Europe.
Only 10 days ago I attended in my capacity as a member of W.E.U. a meeting in Bonn, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) and the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards), at which we were severely criticised, to which we had no defence because we were attacked by Europeans who said, "You say that you want technological co-operation with Europe. Here is the perfect example of a venture in which Europe has something to give and in which Britain has something to give and you will not touch it".
The attack has taken place not only on the Parliamentary front. I will cite only one newspaper cutting, and I apologise to the House for the fact that it is fromLe Monde of 22nd June and therefore is in French. I understand that I would be out of order if I were to read it as it is. I have made a translation of it. I will not vouch for its accuracy, but I think that it is pretty accurate:
The refusal of British participation will not fail to be interpreted as proof of the lack of interest that exists on the other side of the Channel in scientific and technological cooperation. By this fact, it contradicts the offer of Mr. Wilson to create a technological community with the Continental countries to resist still further American competition.
Le Monde is not a newspaper which is hostile to this country. On the contrary, it has consistently backed our co-operation with and entry to the Common Market and has consistently opposed the French Government's policy in keeping us out. If this newspaper is led to say things like that, the situation is serious indeed.
One can understand why it said it. One can remember what has been said. I remember very well the speech of the Prime Minister at Strasbourg in January last year—that great speech in which he repeated over and over again the phrase "We mean business". One could get exquisite pleasure from quoting the right hon. Gentleman's old speeches; this has been true for some months. I do not want to indulge in that game to any great


extent. But his speech went in considerable detail into the advantages which Europe would gain from technological co-operation with Britain. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Let us not be defeatist about Europe's technological contribution compared with that of the United States. … what would the American industrial economy look like today without jet aircraft, directly based on a British invention … the electronic revolution based on the British development of radar; indeed, the entire nuclear superstructure which could never have been created except on the basic research of Rutherford and other British scientists".
I do not know what Rutherford's comment would be on that statement in view of the Government's decision not to go ahead in the one field in which Rutherford perhaps more than any other man was a pioneer.
The Prime Minister did not leave it there. He came back to the subject at Strasbourg when he thought that possibly we would get into the Common Market. He was carried away in a moment of enthusiasm to say things which he would not have said otherwise. The Prime Minister returned to the theme at the Lord Mayor's banquet on 13th November last. We all remember what he said about the seven great points of technological co-operation. I quoted what he said about the second, because I do not want to misjudge him in any way:
We are ready, too, to embark on urgent multi-lateral discussions with our European partners designed to create a new and dynamic European technology. I do not want to prejudge where such consultations might lead, but we are prepared to go as far and as fast as, indeed perhaps further and faster than, any country in Europe in preparing the technological co-operation and integration that can give a new impetus to a European economic union".
"Perhaps further and faster" were the words, and in pursuance of that pledge given by the Prime Minister we have come to a stop.
It is true that Britain is in economic difficulties. It was in economic difficulties when the Prime Minister gave that pledge last November. It was even in economic difficulties when he made his speech at Strasbourg in January of last year. He knew the score. In March of this year, in a debate in the early hours of the morning on the Consolidated Fund Bill—that debate was initiated by my hon. Friend

the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke); it is curious that a matter of this importance can be debated apparently only on the Consolidated Fund Bill and that neither Front Bench is prepared to give time to debate subjects of this kind—the hon. Lady mentioned the figure of £44 million as the British contribution
over that period of eight to nine years".
This is a large sum of money. Will the hon. Lady say tonight that for that amount of money we are prepared to throw away the whole basis of technological co-operation with Europe, because this is what is involved? I have a feeling that it will be something else— something which was foreshadowed, not only in the hon. Lady's speech on 27th March, but which was even foreshadowed in the Prime Minister's speech at the Guildhall. Before this great phrase about going "further and faster" than anybody else, the Prime Minister had put down his project No. 1 of the seven principles in this way:
We are prepared now to embark on bilateral projects"—
this is not strictly a bilateral project—
with any European partner ready to respond to a technological co-operation in any field where such a partnership can yield worthwhile industrial results, and when I refer to bilateral co-operation, I do not have in mind costly Government-financed ventures, whether in space or elsewhere.
If I wanted to logic-chop, I could say that this is not a bilateral venture. It is a multilateral venture and, therefore, was not presumably covered by the Prime Minister's words.
I want to explore a little more closely what the Prime Minister meant. In her speech on 27th March the hon. Lady said this:
The difficult question … is precisely what the scientific and perhaps technological returns on any given investment in scientific research are likely to be. It may be that a large investment in nuclear physics will prove to have been well made. But there is some feeling in the scientific community that the share that has gone to nuclear physics over the last ten years is rather high as against the requirements of other sciences."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 1393–6.]
If Lord Rutherford had adopted that point of view in the early 1930s, we would never have had any development in nuclear physics. If when he started out on this road he had counted only


the possible investment returns, nobody could have told him then and he certainly could not have said whether there would be any return. C.E.R.N. says quite frankly that it does not know whether there will be a return.
Apparently it is now the Government's policy—we should try to get this confirmed by the hon. Lady tonight—that the only multilateral projects on either a European or a wider basis that they are now prepared to invest in are those which have a somewhat dubious commercial advantage—Concorde, in which the Government are prepared to invest an incredible amount, the airbus, although it is doubtful whether that will ever get off the ground, and one or two other projects like that. The Government have abandoned a project in a field in which the Government should be concentrating their thoughts on pure fundamental research, one of the rare fields where Government intervention is not only justified but necessary.
This is the lesson of this sorry affair. I regret it deeply not only from a scientific point of view, but as one who, during the 13 years that I have been a Member of this House, has stood for one thing perhaps more than any other, namely, the integration of this country with the continent of Europe. One reason why I supported the Government when they made their application to join the Community last year was because I thought that they were serious when they said that even if we did not get in we would carry on with technological cooperation. I thought that the Prime Minister's speech at Guildhall last Nove-ember was a serious speech intended to set out a serious programmee. What has happened over this project, as well as over E.L.D.O. and a number of other projects, has proved that, for all the fair words, the deeds do not follow. The result is that all the credibility we had in Europe has been completely lost.
I hope that, even at this late hour, it may be possible for the Government to change their mind. If not, I hope that, when a Conservative Government are returned and we get back to sane policies, it may again be possible to resume the technological and scientific co-operation with Europe which has so wantonly been thrown away.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for opening so briefly. I remind the House that this is the third of 28 debates and it is now half past three. Waiting in the wings are 25 other teams of debaters.

3.31 a.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: As you have so firmly and eloquently reminded us more than once, Mr. Speaker, one feels almost apologetic for raising a subject of this complexity at this hour of the morning, but my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) and I can say, with some justification, that it is not really our fault. The last debate ran rather longer than anybody expected. Apart from that, we have tried to raise this matter on various occasions previously. We have asked for a statement from the Minister and we have asked questions. We have done everything to bring this matter to the Floor of the House. In the end this was the only way we could raise it, even at this late stage when all decisions seem to have been taken.
I will briefly remind the House of the history of the matter. On 20th June this year the British representative at C.E.R.N. made a statement, which came as a bombshell to the assembled scientists of Europe, that the British Government were not, after all, to participate in the proposed 300 GeV nuclear accelerator. Remarkably enough, the same British representative, Professor Flowers, immediately after making that statement in his capacity as chief British delegate to C.E.R.N., made a personal statement as Professor Flowers in which he condemned—

Mr. Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt, but will the hon. Member please speak up?

Mr. Fortescue: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Professor Flowers made a personal statement in which he contradicted the policy of the Government which he had just stated as chief British delegate.
A week later we had the first opportunity in this House to inquire of the Secretary of State for Education and Science why the British Government had decided to withdraw. We had no satisfaction. We had a repetition of exactly


the same statement which had been made in Geneva the week before. In passing, I think it would probably have been more courteous and customary if the statment had first been made in this House and afterwards at C.E.R.N. However, it was done the other way round. We will not emphasise that too much now. As I say we had a repetition of the same statement with a light covering gloss by the Minister, in which he said:
The Government has decided, in the light of their other commitments, that expenditure involved in this very large project would not be justified. … At home … facilities for nuclear structure work will continue to be developed as part of the programme of the Science Research Council."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1968; Vol. 767, c. 107–8.]
That same day, at Business time, we asked for a longer statement and for a debate. We were told "Not this week". It has not been any week until we had this opportunity to raise the matter.
In my brief remarks I want to make two points. First, I want to tell the House that a solution to the problem of resources available for this project was proposed to the Government by the Nuclear Physics Board at a meeting on 8th June which, to us on this side of the House, would seem to have been an ideal solution. As far as we know this has been ignored by the Government, and the Nuclear Physics Board has had no reply. I may be wrong in saying that, and I shall be glad to be informed. Secondly, I want to find out the real reason for the Government's decision to withdraw, apart from the rather specious and inadequate reasons that we have been given so far.
My hon. Friend was rash enough to say that I would explain what a 300 GeV accelerator was, and what it was for. My hon. Friend was very much mistaken in his hope, because I do not entirely understand it, and I venture to say that nobody in this House at this moment, or probably at any other time, understands it either, but I have had it explained to me by some distinguished scientists, and I shall try to tell the House roughly what is involved.
The Nuclear Physics Board said in a statement dated 29th June that
through high energy physics we are already glimpsing in nature patterns of order of un-

suspected grandeur and modes of behaviour that raise questions of importance for the philosophy of our time.
That is somewhat high falutin'. It was brought down to earth for me by the distinguished professor of physics at the University of Liverpool, Professor Cassels, who explained to me in my own home one day not long ago that what was happening was that the nuclear physicists were discovering patterns of behaviour in the molecular structure which seemed to repeat themselves but which, without a large accelerator the physicists, were unable to pre-determine. They were confident that once the accelerators got bigger, and they had access to them, this pre-determination would be possible and that the prospects of extracting power from the atom would then be multiplied a thousand-fold.
The history of this proposed accelerator is set out very clearly in Cmnd. 3503, published in January of this year, and I am sure that everyone in the House is familiar with it. The really significant part of the Command Paper is the support given to this project by each of three distinguished scientific bodies to which it was referred. The right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker), then Secretary of State, set out the facts of what was proposed very clearly and impartially, and then all the bodies to which he turned for advice endorsed the project.
The Council for Scientific Policy said:
The Council for Scientific Policy share the view of the Science Research Council on the scientific value of the 300 GeV project and on its importance for European basic science.
The Nuclear Physics Board said:
There is an outstanding and pressing scientific case for constructing in Europe a 300 GeV proton accelerator. It is now clear that we are entering fundamentally new domains in our understanding of matter".
and so it goes on.
The Working Group of the Council of Scientific Policy under Professor Swann said:
We are convinced that this project is of great and fundamental scientific importance and its adoption is essential if the United Kingdom is to continue as part of a viable European high energy nuclear physics programme.
There was no doubt in the minds of any of the scientific bodies to which this project was referred. There was a


minority report by two distinguished scientists on the Working Group, but I understand that they have since changed their minds in view of the new proposals made by the Nuclear Physics Board. That is the background against which we are working, and against which we want to ask the hon. Lady to justify the Government's decision.
The list of scientists on these three bodies reads like a roll of honour of the scientists of this country. Fellows of the Royal Society drop like water from the list. There seem to be more Fellows than anybody imagined existed. They are the Government's official scientific advisers.
They advised the Government that this project should be proceeded with, and it has not. What happened? Since these distinguished scientists considered this matter we have had the devaluation of the £. Undoubtedly this tragic, or necessary, event—whichever way one looks at it—has affected the Government's view as to the feasibility of our participation in this project, and in particular the economies in Government expenditure which have stemmed from devaluation must have played a big part.
The Nuclear Physics Board has not been unconscious of the effect of devaluation on our scientific programme; on 8th June it proposed to the Government a radical rearrangement of expenditure on fundamental nuclear physics to make room for British participation in the 300 GeV accelerator at no additional cost to the Government than the existing programme of nuclear physics would mean. I have some figures which explain what I am trying to say better than I can. The proposal of the Nuclear Physics Board was as follows: expenditure in this financial year—1968–69— on high energy nuclear physics will amount to some £18·6 million, of which £6·2 million will be on the 28 GeV accelerator at C.E.R.N., £7·3 million on Nimrod at Didcot, £3·6 million on Nina at Daresbury, £800,000 on high energy physics grants to universities and £700,000 on nuclear structure physics grants to universities, adding up to £18·6 million.
The Nuclear Physics Board recommends that the expenditure should be rearranged that by 1973–74, when the expenditure, in its view, should be £19·2

million, only £600,000 different above the amount spent this year. Some of the expenditure on the two small accelerators at Didcot and Daresbury, one of 12 GeV and the other of 7 GeV which combined with the high energy physics grant to universities, which this year added up to £11·7 million, should by 1973–74 be reduced to only £6 million, thus spending on the current activities £5·7 million less in 1973–74 than is being spent in 1968–69. That £5·7 million— or £6 million, rounded up—should be our contribution to the new 300 GeV accelerator at C.E.R.N. in 1973–74.
It admitted that these reductions would be painful and damaging to the development of the nuclear physics effort in this country, but it attached so much importance to our participation in the new 300 GeV accelerator that it was prepared to make this sacrifice. This was a remarkable effort by the Board to try to understand the Government's position and to try to persuade the Government that within our existing scientific resources, without spending any more money on high energy physics in five years' time than is being spent now, to participate in the new project.
What happened? I am told that there has been no reaction by the Government to that proposal. A statement was made at C.E.R.N. on 20th June without any mention of what the Board had proposed, and even now the Board has not been told why its proposals were not practicable or acceptable to the Government. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether these proposals were ever considered seriously, and if they were, and were turned down—why?
My hon. Friend has told the House what alarm and dismay was created in British scientific circles by this decision. There are so many quotations that I cannot hope to give them all. I will give only one, fromNature, the authoritative journal on this subject, on 6th July:
In the circumstances the abruptness of the decision two weeks ago must obviously be counted a departure from reason not simply a manifestation of incompetence.
That is about as scathing a comment on Government action as I have read in any professional journal. If this is the view of the scientists of this country, it is no wonder, as my hon. Friend has


said, that all confidence has been lost in the Government's policy for high energy physics.
Why did the Government suddenly decide to withdraw from this project? We can only guess. My guess is that they believe that too much emphasis has been placed on nuclear physics as opposed to the other scientific disciplines. That cannot be valid, because under the proposal of the Nuclear Physics Board almost the same amount would be spent in 1973–74 as in 1968–69—there would be no change in the proportion of resources being spent.
Can it be that the Government believe that scientific expenditure should be confined to activities which give only a short-term benefit to the country? If that is so, it is a lamentable and alarming theory, and here I quote briefly from a report to the President of the United States of America by his Science Advisory Committee, which in its 1960 report to President Eisenhower said:
 Nothing could be more unwise than an effort to assign priorities or judge results in basic research on a narrow basis of immediate gain.
That sentence ought to be put up in the office of the right hon. Gentleman so that when he looks up every morning he can see it written in letters of gold.
Perhaps the Government believe that they should distrust the advice on scientific subjects of their official officers, who advised unanimously that we should continue to participate on this particular project. The Government have ignored their advisers. Can it be that they now believe that these official bodies, established by the Government to advise them on scientific matters, are no longer to be accepted as authoritative? Or perhaps the Government intend to reduce expenditure on scientific matters rather than let it expand as the basis of our future prosperity.
None of those reasons is credible. The real reason for this molecular myopia has not yet been revealed, but we are attempting, it seems, to eat the seed corn of science, since if we do not participate in this new European development, not only will this particular high energy physics programme wither away in the present generation, but the present

dwindling intake of young people into science will be reduced still further, quite apart from the brain drain of the best of our scientists from the country.
It is not too late for the Government to change their mind. Comparatively little expenditure is involved in the next three or four years. From the figures available to me I have calculated that between now and 1974 the expenditure of only £2½ million would be involved in the new project. I urge the Government to begin to restore the belief, which has been almost lost, that they have a coherent policy for science, and that they deserve the co-operation of pure scientists in their plans for the universities and industry, by indicating this evening that they will consider their decision or give a coherent reason for it which we have not yet heard.
In 1933, Lord Rutherford, who has been quoted many times in this debate, said of his work on atomic science:
 Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.
That was 35 years ago. Today in this House we have heard of two new aluminium smelters to be powered entirely by nuclear power, yet Lord Rutherford himself thought at that time that there was no practical application of what he was doing.
I beg the hon. Lady, the Minister of State to think of what will be happening in this country in the year 2,000, which is about the same distance from now as Lord Rutherford was before us; to think that the work she is killing at C.E.R.N. could well be of as much value to our children as Lord Rutherford's work was for us.

3.50 a.m.

Mr. David Price: I support the case deployed by my hon. Friends by asking a series of questions.
First, do the Government challenge the scientific merits of the proposed 300 GeV accelerator? As my hon. Friends have said, this has had the support of the Nuclear Physics Board, the Scientific Research Council and the Council for Scientific Policy. It also has the support, I believe, of Sir Solly Zuckerman and his council, although their views are not made public. I remind the hon.


Lady of what the Nuclear Physics Board said:
For some years now the United Kingdom nuclear physics community has placed the 300 GeV machine firmly at the very forefront of their priorities. This was established in the Flowers Report of 1963 and, more explicitly, in the Wilkinson Report in 1965; we now firmly reiterate this priority and recommend a speedy commitment by the United Kingdom to the project.
At each level of advisory council this project has had the support of the scientific advisers to the Government. I therefore ask the hon. Lady whether the Government challenge the scientific case. If they do, they must tell us. They must tell us in detail. We would not expect the hon. Lady to tell us in detail tonight, but I hope that they will publish some form of White Paper setting out in detail why they do not accept the scientific case.
It could be that they accept the case but are frightened of the cost. In the original blue book which we were given earlier this year—we are most grateful to the Department for letting us have it—the Science Research Council said that it was certain that this project could be contained within a general growth rate on the science Votes of 9 per cent. a year. That, I think, was confirmed by the hon. Lady when she spoke in the earlier debate. I can well understand that in present circumstances the Government would find it difficult to commit themselves to that, but I remind the House that two years we had an increase in the science Vote to £11 million in the current year, 7·5 per cent. I understand that for next year the hon. Lady's Department is allocating 7·8 per cent. growth in each case, so 9 per cent. is not an impossible figure.
I still understand the Government's reluctance to commit themselves. Here I come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) when he told the House of what have come to be known as the last-ditch proposals. I ask the hon. Lady, why did the Government refuse these proposals of the Nuclear Physics Board and the Science Research Council? Did they take the view that they doubted either the sincerity of the physicists concerned or their ability to deliver the goods?
Do the Government find themselves unable to guarantee even the present

level of expenditure on the science Votes, let alone the 9 per cent. which the Science Research Council had proposed in the original blue book? On all the information available to me I think the Government should have accepted the last-ditch proposals which meant that British participation in the 300 GeV accelerator at C.E.R.N. was attainable within the present level of expenditure on physics.
I hope that the hon. Lady realises the scientific consequences of non-participation. Professor Swann said:
If we did not enter the project, high energy physics would wither away over the next 15 years with the consequent penalty to the quality of trained manpower reaching into areas wider than that of high energy physics alone.
Secondly, once the 300 GeV machine comes into use, our existing machinery at the Rutherford and at Daresbury will cease to be of any real scientific significance. The 300 GeV machine will give increased intensities at the presently available energies by factors of the order of 10,000. That is the sort of thing that we are talking about. Furthermore, access to machines of contemporary power will be denied to British physicists and their students, and Britain will have contracted out of high energy physics.
I remind the Minister of State of the forbidding words of the Nuclear Physics Board:
A country not contributing to the most advanced science is outside the main stream of human development with the most serious consequences for its intellectual life and its productive power".
There is, too, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) which I should like to repeat. Big science is expensive, and is getting beyond the ability of a country even of our size to carry alone. This lends itself naturally to international cooperation. I ask the Government whether they understand, emotionally as well as intellectually, the importance of basic research as opposed to applied research. Do they understand that applied research can be of high quality and of economic profit only when it is intimately associated with and supported by the relevant basic research?
The advances proposed in this type of project, which is at the heart of basic


research programmes, go to the study of the heart of matter and deal with the fourth of the so far discovered field forces: gravity; electro-magnetism; the weak force, which we now know as the nuclear force; and what is being further discovered, the strong force, which is the interaction and behaviour of sub-particles within the nucleus of the atom.
Do the Government realise that this is the basis to modern physics and that high energy physics constitutes the present frontier of our investigation into the general laws which governs the transfer and interaction of energy in all its various forms—as matter, as motion and as radiation? Do the Government understand these things? What is the position of the future of the Advisory Scientific Council if this formidable weight of scientific counsel is ignored by the Government without any responsible reason being given?
On the European side, I ask this question in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden has said. Is it true that the Government have decided not to support any joint collaborative venture in Europe which does not have an identifiable prospect of commercial pay-off? If so, it means that the Government can never collaborate on any venture in the basic sciences because by very definition, when starting on such projects, no commercial pay-off is identifiable.
The Government have not so far given us a single alternative proposal. To me, this decision represents the devaluation of the future of British physics and the devaluation of British co-operation in European scientific ventures.

3.58 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): We have had a powerfully expressed voice put by hon. Members opposite, and I will endeavour to explain, I hope not at great length, the reasons for the Government's decision.
In the debate on 26th March this year, I said that no one would question the desirability of the project, all other things being equal. I repeat that. That goes, perhaps, some way to answer the first question put by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) when he

asked whether the Government accepted the scientific case for the 300 GeV nuclear accelerator. The reasons for the refusal flow directly from the debate which occurred shortly before this one, which was, as hon. Members will recall, concerned largely with the economic situation in which the country finds itself.
I will deal first with the original proposals as advanced by the Council for Scientific Policy and the Science Research Council and then go on, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) asked me to do, to the late amended proposals which came forward from the Nuclear Physics Board.
On the first point, it was made clear by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State that the effects of devaluation would have to be taken seriously into account in the Government's decision on the matter. In his preface to Cmnd. 3503, he said:
Devaluation has … made it necessary for the Government to look with particular care at all public expenditure, quite apart from the above factors. The Government must, therefore, consider this proposal very searchingly, bearing in mind the advice printed here and the outcome of discussions in C.E.R.N
So already at that time, when Cmnd. 3503 was published, a note of warning had been sounded regarding the effects of devaluation. The effects were to raise the British contribution to the estimated total cost of £175 million for the construction of the 300 GeV accelerator to a sum between £39 million and £44 million, depending on whether all the member States of C.E.R.N. agreed to enter into the commitment involved.
It was not merely a question of this sum of money. There was also the question, in part, of the length of the commitment and the fact that it would be a rising commitment. Lying beyond the construction commitment and covering a period of no less than 15 years, there would be a major commitment to the operating costs of the project.
As hon. Members will recall, particularly those who have been dealing with the question of the scientific advice which the Government receive, there were three factors which were laid down in Cmnd. 3503. One concerned, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, the growth expected in scientific expenditure. As the hon. Gentleman fairly pointed out,


the 9 per cent. a year was for no less than 10 years ahead. Incidentally, if this were projected forward to the end of the century, it would amount to roughly the whole of the gross national product of this country. So we are talking of a fairly massive expansion. The assumption was 9 per cent. a year for 10 years, and the Council on Scientific Policy made clear that this would be roughly the condition on which it would support the 300 GeV accelerator.
The growth rate in the current year 1968–69 is 7½ per cent., that is, falling below the 9 per cent. laid down by the C.S.P. This is one factor. It was also a tight budget from the point of view of including this project for nuclear high-energy physics. The growth factor has thus not been met in the first of the 10 years.
The second point 1 make is that the Report itself indicated that there were, or there might be, certain dangers of escalation in the costs of the project. It is true that the draft C.E.R.N. Convention has safeguards regarding escalation of costs. Nevertheless, the costs of the 28 GeV accelerator, a smaller device, have risen to a considerable extent. I do not want to hark back to the original estimates of what it would cost, which were made as long ago as 1953, because, as the House appreciates, science has a major sophistication factor and it would be quite unfair to look at it in that way. But it is fair to say that the escalation in cost has been considerable for the 28 GeV accelerator over a short period.
For the two small accelerators in this country, there have been estimated escalations of cost in real terms of about 25 per cent. over a period of five to six years. This also was a factor which the Government had to bear in mind. The tendency is for advanced scientific projects of this kind to have a considerable escalation factor, a factor difficult to allow for in the tight budget which had been drawn up.
But there is rather more to it than that. The hon. Member for Eastleigh asked whether the Government accepted the scientific case. Yes, they do accept the scientific case—this is a desirable project—but that is not the whole question. The other part is, what other priorities exist in fundamental research? I wish to make that distinction because

we are not now talking about research which has an immediate spin-off.
In Cmnd. 3503, C.S.P. itself said at paragraph 28 on page 19:
 Firstly, there are many scientific activities of comparable interest which cost a fraction of the above sum to support the same number of active researchers. Secondly, there is the obvious existence of a threshold expenditure in high energy nuclear physics, below which progress in this field can hardly be sustained.
Therefore, it is not only a question of the scientific value of this project but the comparable scientific value of a number of other scientific projects in fundamental research. Hon. Members opposite, not least the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) who has often argued the case for greater expenditure on oceanography, molecular biology and radio astronomy—to mention only three major fields, will appreciate that there are other crucial fields for which room must also be made in the gradually expanding scientific budget.
The hon. Member for Garston referred to some of the great possibilities in nuclear structure, but many of these possibilities are not explored through such devices as the proton accelerator but through other scientific projects of a kind that are at present in competition for the amount of expenditure that would be needed to go ahead on the 300 GeV accelerator.
I have two other brief points on this before turning to the later S.R.C. proposals. The first was I think rightly divined by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. There is a quite serious question about the proportion of the scientific budget which should go to high energy nuclear physics. At present about one-fifth of the total science budget goes to this one part of physics. Over 40 per cent. of the Science Research Council budget goes to this one field of physics.
Second, the amount of scientific unanimity on this can be over-stressed to some extent. The debate in another place showed a considerable division of scientific opinion. I could quote a magazine that was very briefly quoted by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk), theNew Scientist. It said as recently as 27th June:
But the decision will gratify many researchers in other fields who have groused for too long that too much of the cake was going


to those young, brilliant Apollos at CERN. Discontent has been growing even among many physicists, those who might perhaps be called the worker priests. They have felt for some while that if we want to afford far-out extravagances like big proton race-tracks we must first earn the wherewithal through physics of a more immediately lucrative kind.
Hon. Members opposite will have seen the recent letter inThe Times from a distinguished professor of physics at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. I have before me a letter from a Fellow of the Royal Society and distinguished professor at the Imperial College of Science and Technology. It says:
According toThe Times, certain M.P.s have protested the cut in the proposed 300 GeV accelerator for CERN. I urge you to stand firm and resist.
I mention this not to suggest that there has not been a great weight of support for the 300 GeV accelerator, but simply to try to balance what may have seemed a suggestion by hon. Members opposite that scientific opinion was unanimous on the subject. It is not.
I should now like to say a word about the S.R.C. Nuclear Physics Board proposals. Without doubt these were very imaginative. They made a real attempt to meet the difficulties over the science budget, the share for nuclear physics, and the question of escalation. However, two difficulties arise. The first is the practical problems of phasing out national facilities such as those at Rutherford and Dares-bury, particularly as one of these facilities is a relatively recent foundation. Second, it might have been much more practicable to adopt the Board's proposals if Mudford had been a stronger candidate for the sites proposed for the 300 GeV accelerator. But if Mudford had not been chosen, the result of the Board's proposals would have been that there would be no accelerator in this country of comparable energy, indeed, of energy above that of the very smallest level of research accelerator, and we are talking about the period in which at least two of the small accelerators which are still in existence would have been phased out.
So the position was one in which—the hon. Gentleman referred to a brain drain —in effect the whole of high energy nuclear physics research would have had to be based entirely in another country. Without doubt, this presents consider-

able difficulties in terms of employment of scientists, availability of accelerators and availability of research projects in this country to attract high energy nuclear physicists.
The final point will affect what the hon. Member for Saffron Walden said. I know of his great interest in matters concerned with Europe, and I hope he will concede that, while my part has not been as distinguished, I have never doubted the need for Britain to become part of the European Economic Community. I am surprised that he has cast so much doubt on the Governmentbona fides in this. I should have thought that in the face of some provocation from at least one member of the Community the Government have persisted in indicating that there is no withdrawal or diminishing of their interest in eventually becoming a member of the European Economic Community. The hon. Member referred particularly to the Prime Minister's speech concerning technological co-operation. I only mention in passing, on the point that he made and that the hon. Member for Eastleigh made as well, that the Prime Minister's speech specifically referred to technological co-operation, and that this project is in a very different field.
Nevertheless, in the field of scientific collaboration there have been not only proposals but specific commitments of very large sums of money in respect of recent developments. No hon. Member opposite has mentioned a major and unique project going ahead under C.E.R.N., the project for Intersecting Storage Rings, which costs £40 million, which will be completed in 1970, to which this country is a full contributor, and which will give the equivalent in energy of a conventional proton accelerator of no less than 1,400 GeV. It is true to say that limitations exist on the intensity of the beam and that this is not as flexible an instrument. Nevertheless it is an instrument in which the United States has shown very great interest, and it has asked for the right to co-operate and send scientists to take part in the project. It is an important project in which this country has been involved from the beginning.
In the last few months Britain has proposed a European research council. We made clear that, in our opinion, such a council would have a major part to play


in embarking upon further scientific cooperation in Europe. We are working on new projects in the field of molecular biology under E.M.B.O., the European project, and there is a specific proposal in the technological field for a centre for European technology which was advanced by the Minister of Technology as recently as the end of May. In addition, the national facilities available at Daresbury and Rutherford were proposed for sharing on a European basis as recently as December, 1967, at the C.E.R.N. council meeting.
I mention all these facts not to persuade the hon. Gentleman that the Government's decision can be put to him as one that he would accept—I am sure he will not accept it—but to show that the reasons for the Government decision are closely bound up with Government expenditure. The commitment—the hon. Member for Garston will jump to his feet if I do not make this clear—is a very long-term one to a very large sum of money, and has nothing to do with any desire to withdraw from close cooperation with Europe. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least accept that the list of things that I have given, including one relatively expensive scientific project in the field of high energy nuclear physics, indicates that the Government are concerned to maintain close co-operation with Europe.
Lastly, I have a word about the relationship of the Government to the research councils. I recognise that the research councils have long enjoyed, and properly, the right to give advice and have that advice carried out when made to the Government. But hon. Members will recognise that under the Act which was passed in 1965, and which bore out the provisions of earlier Acts, it was made clear that at all stages major expenditure in these fields was subject to the directives of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and was a matter for the normal supervision of the Treasury which applies to all Government expenditure.
Not only has the research councils' advice been taken seriously but we fully recognise that they must have a degree of independence. We recognise that they have a right to indicate the disposal of scientific resources—a right which we wish to maintain. But we had, with regret, to step in with respect to this proposal because of the degree of commitment which it implied.
Perhaps, in closing, I may echo what was said by the hon. Member for East-leigh in his closing remarks—it was Sir Isaac Newton who said, "If I see far it is because I stand on other men's shoulders". We fully accept that in the end all applied research depends on fundamental research. It would be unwise to regard fundamental research as having to be assessed purely in terms of its immediate spin off.
We regret that certain decisions had to be made in the light of devaluation. We very much hope that there is no question of any fall in expenditure on scientific research. We hope that our decision will not discourage other European States from going ahead with the project if they decide to do so, for it is our view that that would leave the possibility open, should our circumstances later permit, for our joining perhaps at a later stage.

Mr. Fortescue: The hon. Lady told us why the Government disregarded the advice of the Nuclear Physics Board in the proposal, but the reasons which she gave for that judgment were entirely scientific. She said it was because if we did as the Board suggested there would be no facilities in this country for scientists to study. But that is a scientific matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a second speech as an intervention.

Mrs. Williams: It raised the question whether it would be feasible to pass all the resources across to a single centre. We had to bear in mind that it might be impossible to close the British facilities in a way which would make the resources available.

Orders of the Day — IMMIGRATION

Mr. Speaker: Before the next debate, may I remind the House that this is the fourth of 28 debates. Waiting somewhere about the House are 24 other teams of debaters.

4.17 a.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: That emphasises, Mr. Speaker, the sense of guilt which I have about being here at all. I do not know why I suffer a sense of guilt, but I begin with a sincere apology to the Under-Secretary of State, who is among the most hard-working Ministers on the Government Front Bench, for keeping him out of bed to answer the debate at this hour of the morning.
It is not entirely my fault because, thank heavens, I am not responsible for the fatuous way in which the Government arrange business. There were some exchanges on Monday with the Home Secretary on the subject of Commonwealth immigration when the Home Secretary announced the urban programme. They were necessarily brief exchanges and incomplete. I thought that we should not break up for 10 weeks or so without attempting to clarify a little further what our policy should be on a matter of such great public concern.
We should not under-rate—I know that the Under-Secretary does not—or misunderstand the public concern. My reading of the public attitudes is that the majority are fundamentally not intolerant about the coloured minority settled here. They are most willing to accept the law against discrimination, and in saying, as we all do in the House, that we will not support the creation of second-class citizens, we carry them with us. But they are deeply concerned about the high and continuing influx, now at a rate, as I calculate it, of not less than 50,000 a year net increase. This is a rate which, as they see it, could, in another decade, add another half to what is already a formidable social challenge, leaving aside the natural increase amongst those already here. Again, they question whether we have a clear sense of direction—whether, indeed, we are in control of events.
These are not unreasonable doubts. They should not be exaggerated or in-

flamed. But nor, most emphatically, should they be ignored. My estimate is that we have about 1,200,000 coloured immigrants. I am sure that most of them are here to stay. It is equally clear that, under present policies, inevitably this figure will get a lot higher. There is no easy way out and it is the height of political irresponsibility to encourage any belief that there is. Voluntary repatriation—anything but voluntary would be unthinkable—may achieve results but it would be unwise to put them too high. I do not ignore the possibilities but I do not inflate them.
Similarly, I completely reject the idea of a total halt or even a total moratorium on all immigration. It would be morally indefensible and politically impossible. It would be both these things not least because we have, at least in the past, encouraged these immigrants. We have recruited them. Immigration has not been a crime and cannot retrospectively be made one. None of these facile solutions can contribute much to a solution of the problem and we should not mislead people into thinking they can. The Government's task is to control the entry of immigration
… so that it does not outrun the Britain's capacity to absorb them …
as the White Paper on Immigration, Command 2739, published in 1967, puts it.
I shall not enter into the semantics of the word "capacity" but I am clear that it is a psychological if not a physical limit. I am also clear that we are close to that now. I accept the Home Secretary's view that the present rate of influx will tend to decrease. It has decreased. But we are still left with a formidable number arriving.
It is difficult to establish a firm measure, for example, not least because the only returns embrace the whole Commonwealth. In 1967 they are masked to a certain extent by a mass exodus of Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders. We can say with certainty that we admitted for settlement 61,000 in 1967 and about 11,000 students on top of that. In the first five months of this year, 23,196 have been admitted, which, conservatively means about 50,000 a year. Of that total, 2,054 have been holders of vouchers and 19,847 dependants. So the pattern remains that the


number of dependants is running at about 10 times the number of voucher holders. We know why that is and I expect that the major change which has been made could alter this pattern.
Vouchers issued in 1965 totalled nearly 13,000. In 1966 the number was 5,461. Last year the number was 4,716 and this year, at the present rate, the figure will be about the same at last year's. As time passes the annual level of about 40,000 dependants will, in respect of voucher holders already here, taper off, but I question whether it will taper off very quickly If the Home Office has made projections for the years immediately ahead, the House would be interested to have the figures.
We do not have as firm a control over this matter as we should have. No doubt the Under-Secretary will say that we have closed some loopholes with the 1968 Act. While that is true, it would be unwise to assume that serious loopholes and abuses do not still exist. The published figures do not cover the whole picture. Having studied the problem in recent months, I suggest that the pressures to get here, particularly from Asia, India and Pakistan, are undiminished. The wish to come here is as strong as ever and this means that the people concerned are alert to any legitimate opening which presents itself.
For example, does the Home Office know how many young men from Asia have applied for entry this year on grounds of having fiancees in this country? This is a movement which needs to be watched. I do not wish to exaggerate the position, but I know that a number of men are coming here—I appreciate the terms on which they are allowed to enter —because they are seeking to marry girls in this country and are claiming that they have fiancees here. Are the Government satisfied that the checks onbona fide visitors provide sufficient proof? Do they know how many students—there were 11,000 last year—are settling here? Do they share my impression that a high proportion of dependants, even since the passing of the 1968 Act, are children near the 16 years of age mark? I will return to this subject.
I have seen a little of the operation of immigration control. I do not underrate the capacity of the immigration officers but, whatever we do, much lies within their discretion. However, we frame legis-

lation and regulations, many decisions rest with them and I therefore question whether the task that has been given to them is a fair one. How, for example, can they positively ascertain whether all the children are sons and daughters of the families claiming them? As things are, far too much must be decided on judgment, which means that there is either too much latitude or, occasionally, injustice.
At this hour I will not spend time on the nuts and bolts of immigration control. There are bigger issues to be resolved and there is a matter of machinery which I must press. It is time that we made entry certificates mandatory. This has long been agreed as desirable and at present only one in five Commonwealth immigrants use the entry certificate. I followed closely the arguments adduced by Sir Roy Wilson about a year ago, although his argument against making the entry certificate mandatory was not complete.
He said that when we do this we are asking people to do what foreigners do not have to do, namely, carry a visa on their passports. The short answer is that there are controls over the foreigner coming in which are not exercised over the Commonwealth citizen, and we are not comparing like with like. I urge that action on those lines be taken as soon as possible. I have learned enough about this to appreciate the complexity of immigration control, and the folly of making apparently simple demands. There are some questions which the Government must face.
First there is the matter of vouchers. Some would like to see the end of "A" vouchers, relating to the unskilled, and entry limited to "B" vouchers, for those with skills. At a pinch I could accept the proposition on "A" vouchers, but certainly not that on the "B" vouchers. Simply to take skills we want, and reject everything else, would be a policy devoid of moral basis. The question is: do we continue to regard such entry as entry for settlement, or ought we to consider applying a term to it? I realise that it would involve a change in the British Commonwealth Acts, but we should surely consider the possibility of allowing British citizens to come here to learn skills, as they do now, but without necessarily


acquiring the right to settle here permanently?
Is there not a case for saying that this highly sophisticated and industrial island has much to offer, and should accord Commonwealth citizens, particularly those from the poorer parts, the chance to benefit without acquiring permanent residence? Such an approach would have many advantages, because it would allow a much freer traffic among Commonwealth citizens without the anxiety which thede facto right to settle now creates. In the long run it would bring benefits to the Commonwealth, to which our present policy offers little.
Our policy towards dependants has to be considered from our view, not theirs. Can we go on admitting voucher holders without some regard to the number of dependants, and the respective dates of their arrival? Ought we not to require some voucher holders to register those particulars? Is it sensible to bring in a high proportion of young people, on the edge of the labour market, for settlement, without one day's education in this country? This was a matter on which the former Home Secretary expressed considerable anxiety last November, when expiring laws were being discussed.
I agree that the Act has since lowered the limits generally, though not in every case, from 18 to 16. I am also aware of the difficulty of imposing a limit lower than 16, but at least we ought to consider whether it is advisable for so many young people, on the boundaries of 16, to enter the country without education here, and secondly whether, by some fiscal or other means, we could find a way of reducing the number of "elderly teenagers", coming here principally for jobs.
Thirdly, ought we continually to allow immigrants to arrive, and freely gravitate towards areas of their choice, almost certainly to areas of highest concentration? It is imperative that we ensure, not merely that the immigrant has a job open to him, or a place where his skill will be needed, but a place where suitable accommodation, by our standards, is available. It must be determined and related to dependants before entry. Here we touch one of the most sensitive and

psychological factors. For many of the indigenous population lack of a home is still the acutest form of social distress. If we bring in numbers of people for whom we lack suitable accommodation, we shall change that distress into something much more acute and perilous. That brings one back to entry certificates and the part which they will have to play. If these arrangements are properly administered, they will involve a delay in the entry of those coming here. But emigrants from this country to other Commonwealth countries sometimes spend months, even years, preparing their journey and making their arrangements, and by comparison—I have heard this said by immigrants—our arrangements appear easy-going, even slapdash.
To say that we need these immigrants, as I believe we do, is no answer because our needs should not lead to arrangements which militate against the immigrants as much as against the indigenous population. None of these policies can be sensibly examined, worked out and put into effect without more information than we have. Our information is frankly deficient. I should like to see the registration of all prospective dependants, not simply as a disciplinary or control exercise, but to give us the facts which we simply must have on which to base a rational policy. I accept that this would mean a bigger bureaucracy than we have now. I am not in the least frightened of accepting or advocating that, because we must get our priorities right.
This is now, and will continue to be, probably our most difficult social problem, and if we are to avoid the troubles which can be discerned on the horizon we must get a system of control which is seen to work effectively. The present system is not thus seen. It leaves far too much to chance. The public are sensible of its deficiencies, and the public are right. Their disquiet must not be dismissed as mere prejudice. If we ran aliens control in this way we would have trouble. We have avoided trouble in respect of aliens all my life because we do not run the aliens system in this way.
Ministers and Members must be a little humble about this. The public are not altogether wrong in their uneasy feeling that matters are not as much within our control as we sometimes have them


believe. We should be open to a fundamental reappraisal of our immigration policies—I have mentioned directions in which our thinking should go—and we should not allow extremists on either side to deter us. The trouble with extremists is that they sometimes tend to harden and rigidity official attitudes instead of rendering them more amenable. With that in mind I have tried to put as reasonably as I can some of the options which lie open to us.

4.38 a.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: Speaking on a subject as large and serious as this at this hour does not encourage one to be prolix. Also it makes it easier for us to try to emulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in approaching this subject on a fairly low key and in as moderate and unemotional way as possible.
My right hon. Friend said—and we would agree with him—that he felt that it would not be right to adjourn for a long Recess without having had a chance to ventilate some of the disquiet which still exists in this country and to give the Government a chance to dilate. My right hon. Friend is clearly right in saying that the public are still deeply disturbed about the quantity aspect of immigration and about the measures for control— whether they are strict enough or enforceable even in their own terms. One can do no more—we have done it before, but we must do it again—than beg the Government to believe that those of us who have tried to express the public's disquiet about these matters are not actuated by motives of hostility to immigrants and are not doing anything but trying to help the Government and local authorities and all men of good will to solve peacefully a problem which will increasingly become one of stress and disquiet.
I do not believe that the Government have any hope of making a race relations and conciliation machinery or any form of legislation work, unless the confidence of the people in immigration control can be secured. This confidence is essential to willing co-operation in amicable race relations.
The arguments which have been used against those of us who have repeatedly warned of the public disquiet and of the perhaps increasingly unpleasant forms it

might take if reassurances were not forthcoming are wearing increasingly thin. I ask any hon. Gentleman if he could lay his hand on his heart and say, if he were back now 15 years ago in the early or middle 1950s and knew then what would be the numbers coming to Britain 15 years ahead from then and what would be the total number of coloured immigrants in 1968, that he would then have acquiesced in the nature, level and pace of control measures which were then being so leisurely discussed and so belatedly and, in my view, inadequately introduced. I cannot believe that there is anyone who could honestly say that he would then have contemplated with equanimity the situation which has now arisen.
If that is so, as I honestly believe that it is, the responsibility is even stronger for the Government, and indeed for all of us, to look now at the situation ahead and so say, "If we were wrong then", as we all were, "are we likely to be right when we view the present situation with equanimity?", bearing in mind that it is the fears of the people that have to be allayed if race relations are to be conducted as we want them to be conducted.
The arguments are wearing a little thin. It is no good any more telling people that the proportion of coloured immigrants is only 2 per cent. of the total population and that it will be only 4 per cent. at the end of the century, because this sounds a little hollow in urban areas where the population is 50 per cent. This is where the shoe pinches. It is no good producing the old arguments about the economic need for immigrants in industries where we have seen that the availability of cheap labour has served as a substitute for courage and inventiveness in the application of capital investment to save labour or for a real determination to take possibly unpopular decisions of rationalisation in the labour-intensive industries.
To say that we need unskilled immigrants is to beg so many economic questions that I think, knowing the overmanning that exists over a wide section of British industry, that it would be a brave man who could say with certainty that we need them. One has only to look at the position in London Transport


and in some of the foundries in Birmingham to see that it is at least a highly arguable proposition.
We need doctors and nurses. But again, who can strike the balance sheet accurately and say that, if we had been prepared to take some courageous decisions to train doctors and nurses from under-developed countries and encourage them to go back to the countries which need them even more than we do, we would not have kept more of our own doctors in this country who have been emigrating to Canada at a disturbing rate during the last 10 or 15 years?
I do not want to detain the House any longer. I beg the Government to recognise that the complacency which some hon. Members and some official spokesmen have shown towards this problem has its own dangers and, if they really want a state of peaceful, fruitful co-operation in race relations in this country in future, people's fears about future numbers and the adequacy of control must be allayed now.

4.46 a.m.

Mr. Tom Boardman: If I cannot address the House with the same ability as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), I hope that I can do so with no less sincerity in the desire to analyse and to resolve what I think we all now accept as a major social problem.
It has not always been so. In many quarters, not just on the part of the Government, there has been a hypocritical view about immigration. There has been the attitude of saying, "Do not look and it will go away." But that has added to the problem and to the tensions.
The problem is not one of colour— of course, that enters into it—but of social habit and social consequences upon such matters as housing, schools, social welfare, social benefits and the like. It has also been accentuated by abuses in the entry system. Thes are matters which I have been endeavouring to probe in the comparatively short time that I have been a Member of this House. I have met with some resistance in those probes. I have been told, and it has been implied, that I was being a naughty boy to touch on such subjects. But they are

real problems, particularly in my constituency. I know that the Undersecretary has recently visited Leicester, so he will be aware of the problems.
I will give some brief illustrations of the problems that arise to see how proposals may ameliorate them in future. First, maternity hospitals. Young married women in Leicester—born and brought up there—have found, having set up nice, comfortable homes with their husbands, that, when they want to have their first babies, they are unable to get into a hospital unless they are a priority case on medical or on sociological grounds. But the majority of young mothers are unable to get into hospitals because, on sociological and medical grounds, priority has to be given to those whose home conditions are not suitable. That means they do not go to the type of person I am talking about. This has built up much resentment.
When I asked about the figures some time ago I was told that such figures were not kept. I can understand why. But I wish to stress that hiding away or not looking at the problem has accentuated it.
We get the same problem with social benefits. There is much feeling—probably grossly exaggerated—that social benefits are taken in excess by the immigrants who come here. Information about that, too, is not available, and I think that this has added to the tension and misunderstanding.
There is also trouble in the schools. Up to 1967, the latest year for which figures are available, 55 per cent. of the children at primary schools were immigrants, with the problems of language, and so on, which leads to resentment and misunderstanding. Yet, at this time when we have so much overcrowding in the schools, about which the hon. Gentleman knows, the school building programme has been slashed. This has caused great bitterness and much unfairness, and I hope that the Minister will say something about that when he replies to the debate.
We have had, too, the abuse of the entry conditions, and the feeling that these abuses were not being investigated. Reference has been made to fiancées coming to this country. I obtained figures of entry, or conditional entry, permits for people coming in on condition that they got married within six months of


their entry. The figure for the 12 months to 30th June, 1967, was 2,494. I asked how many of those had fulfilled the condition and got married, and how many who had not fulfilled the condition had been returned home. I was told that no statistical record was kept of that.
I believe that there has been a grave abuse of this entry condition by so-called fiancées. I have sent the hon. Gentleman details of a number of cases, which I know he has investigated, but these are only the tip of the iceberg. As I said earlier, in the year to June, 1967, about 2,494 came in, but there are no statistics relating to them. I believe that this is a door which should be closed.
What should be done now? I go all the way with my right hon. and hon. Friends in what they have said, and I shall not go over the same ground except to emphasise one or two points. I believe that for the time being there should be no more entry work vouchers. We must stop and draw breath until we can see the size of the problem, and how to deal with it.
I believe that we must also pause while we take stock of the number of dependants who come in. I share the views of my hon. Friends about dependants coming in, except that here we have an obligation, but we must know how many there will be. It is reasonable and proper that every person who has been admitted to this country should be asked to say how many dependants he claims will qualify, and whom he wishes to come to this country. He should give sufficient basic information to enable the dependency to be verified, and details of age, and so on, to be ascertained. This will cause delay, but this will be a small price to pay.
With that information—for which I suggest there should be a time limit of, say, six months—we would be able to assess, first, the number who want to come in, and, secondly, we would be able to assess the areas likely to be affected, because we would know that people in the Leicester area, or the Birmingham area, or wherever it is, have so many dependants whom they want to bring in.
With that information we can make some provision. We want to know the ages of the children for school places.

We can then see whether we have the resources to meet this requirement and do something about it. We should also consider the granting of conditional or limited entry vouchers. I see no reason for drawing a distinction between the conditions of entry for aliens and people from the Commonwealth. I recognise the historic ties between ourselves and the Commonwealth, and there may be a need for some distinction but the problem is such that entry on the same sort of conditions as apply to aliens, which would permit people to come here to learn or hire or apply their skills for a limited period, with a right to apply for residence, with discretionary power for the Government to grant or refuse it, is a reasonable provision, which would go a small way to removing some of our present problems.
We should also encourage and assist those prepared to return home. There will not be many, but there are some whom we could with advantage both to their home country and ourselves give some encouragement to go back. But we should not just think of those here. We have talked about "A" and "B" vouchers. It would be wrong to admit the skilled but keep out the unskilled. It is right that those who come here with enterprise and skills should be enabled, helped, encouraged and persuaded to learn to apply those skills for the benefit of the millions of their countrymen whom they have left behind. If we denude those countries of these people we are doing no service to them. This can go a little way towards helping to solve the immigrant problem.
There should also be a review of the distribution of social benefits. There is a general belief that this is abused. I do not know whether it is true or false. We have been told in general terms that the social contributions made by immigrants are greater than the benefits they are drawing, but this is not the general impression given by people where tension is building up. More frankness would help. By announcing his proposals for aid to these areas the Home Secretary to some extent acknowledged that there was a drain on social benefits in the areas affected. This point requires examination.
These are the main causes of the troubles and some ways in which they could be reduced. A great deal has been said about the problem in the past few months, and we now need some action.

4.59 a.m.

Sir David Renton: My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has performed a valuable service by challenging the Government's immigration policy on this occasion. That challenge seemed all the more effective for its studied moderation. My right hon. Friend showed beyond dispute that the present control is not effective, that the formidable numbers which still come in are greater than our people can absorb without aggravating the shortage of houses and the position in schools, hospitals and maternity homes. Above all, my right hon. Friend has pointed out that the Government have failed to carry out even their own policy as set out in the White Paper of August, 1965, which he quoted.
I suggest that in this, as in all other matters our first duty is to our present constituents, wherever they may have come from. Our aim, I hope, is to help all of them to obtain an ever-improving standard of living. But, with the best will in the world, that is made more difficult if considerable unspecified net increases in the number of immigrants are to take place each year. Especially is it made more difficult in those towns and cities which already have large numbers of immigrants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) seemed to me to go to one of the most crucial parts of the problem when he referred to the need for the registration of dependants of those already here. If such registration were to take place, we could at least measure the size of this large and so far open ended commitment without departing from any principle. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will on this occasion give a sympathetic hearing to that suggestion.
My right hon. Friend has already shown that the 1968 Act has had only marginal effect on the numbers coming in. By the time we have the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill in the late autumn we shall have an even clearer picture of what is happening; we shall by then have had at least six months experience of control under the new Act. We shall also have a clearer picture of the need for further legislation and of more effective administration. Meanwhile, I hope that the Under-Secretary will assure the

House and the country that the Government will accept and implement their own White Paper of nearly three years ago, and will do us the courtesy of considering the Conservative Party's detailed policy on immigration control.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strat-ford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) said so rightly that we, that is Parliament, must secure the confidence of the people. I suggest in all seriousness that we are more likely to do so if the Government steal the Conservative Party's policy on immigration than if they reject it. Above all, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us that he, too, is grateful to my right hon. Friend, and that after this debate, whatever he may find himself able or unable to say during it, he will get busy on the valuable suggestions made by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

5.3 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): I at once say that I welcome the opportunity given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) to deal with this important question. The right hon. Gentleman does not have to apologise to me or, I think, to the House, for having us up at this time of night, or day.
These are important questions. They are questions that divide parties and people, and the Opposition party here, as in the country, is divided on the issue of immigration control. Some would like to stop all coloured immigration— no more voucher holders, no more dependants. The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) suggested that there should be some temporary hold up of dependants. But there are other hon. Members opposite, like the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) who would certainly like to see a total stop. There are others who want to maintain control but take a limited number of people on vouchers and, more important, to retain the right of dependants, wife and children up to age 16, to join the father in this country. This, of course, is the policy of the Government. I do not believe that there is a great difference between the policy of the Opposition Front Bench and of the Government on this issue. Neither do I


think we should seek to create difficulties. Some proposals have been put forward by the Conservative Party and the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to them as Conservative Party policy on immigration. I should like to look at that in answering the debate and I hope that soon there will be an opportunity for my right hon. Friend's proposal for an all-party Select Committee to look at some of these questions. This may give a further opportunity of analysing proposals which come from one side of the House or the other.
Once one accepts, as the two Front Benches do, that there is a case for some limited number of people to come here for employment for particular jobs and that their dependants should be able to come, the room for manoeuvre is not great. Since the Government came to power there has been a substantial reduction in the number of voucher holders admitted. In 1963 30,000 voucher holders were admitted; last year it was less than 5,000. This Government have related the issue of vouchers much more closely to the economic needs of the country. My hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for Employment and Productivity indicated in reply to a Question recently the numbers admitted in 1967—doctors 938, nurses 41, scientists 246, engineers 276, civil engineers 147— I need not give them all.
These are people who clearly make a contribution in providing skills which the country needs. We are not involved in a system of cheap labour. This was so in the past, but it is not the case today. We cannot simply shuffle off responsibility for people who have been admitted in time gone by.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked if people with employment vouchers should be admitted unconditionally. If we make a comparison between those from the Commonwealth and those who are aliens, we find that the figures for aliens are far greater than those for Commonwealth citizens. In 1967 the total number of aliens admitted for employment was 45,867, nine times as many as those admitted from the Commonwealth. Of course, had we admitted all those from the Commonwealth who applied for vouchers, the

number would have been very much higher. This proposal would add to the administration. Aliens are admitted for employment initially for six months or a year. They can then apply for an extension and it has to be decided whether to extend the term. After they have been in approved employment for four years, the condition is removed. My impression is that Commonwealth citizens wishing to come here would wish to extend their permitted stay and at the end of the four years we would find that after a very substantial administrative burden the situation was not very much different. However, these are points which could be looked at.
The main problem, however, does not lie in the field of employment vouchers but in that of dependants. The Government remain of the view that men who come here to live and work should have the right to have their dependants with them. This was written into the 1962 Act and is accepted by both Front Benches. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) asked, if we lived our time over again, would we all do the same? I do not suppose that we would, but we have to live with what has happened in the past. That Government are pursuing a policy of control which is not identical with that of 1962. It is much more stringent than anything done by the previous Government. We have, however, to live with what has happened in the past. When people have come here and settled in employment and have the right for their families to join them, we cannot simply remove that right.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, realise that when I said that, I was not suggesting that we could in any way change the situation as it is now. I was saying that we should take this as a warning about being too complacent about current rates of immigration and what the future position might be.

Mr. Ennals: I would never argue the case for complacency. We cannot be complacent. We have to look into the future to see what it holds for us. In doing so, we should not go back upon obligations, and it would not be in the interests of the country or of the people here to say that a wife and child should not join those who have been here over the years.
It is clear that many of those who are now coining in as dependants are dependants not only of those who arrived before 1962, but of those who arrived before 1965, when the situation was tightened. During the period of a recent survey at London Airport, 42 per cent. of the dependants who arrived were the dependants of men who settled here before 1965. At the present time, dependants account for 90 per cent. of all new arrivals for settlement.

Sir D. Renton: What was the length of the period of survey?

Mr. Ennals: It was conducted only over a fortnight. We recognise that that was a brief time from which precise conclusions should not be drawn, but it included enough people to draw some conclusions which I thought that it would be helpful for the House to have.
In 1967, of a total of 61,000 people admitted, 53,000 were dependants. That inescapable conclusion is that any measures to reduce substantially the numbers coming for settlement would have to restrict the rate of arrivals of dependants. A number of the proposals put forward by the Opposition would deal with such matters as permanent entry certificates or registration of dependants. All these are matters of interest. If, however, we wished to slow down the rate of entry, we would have to take measures to restrict the rate of arrival by removing existing rights of entry.
I was asked about boys of working age. It will be recalled that it was our concern about boys in particular joining single parents and coming in at about the age of 15 and going on to the labour market which led us in this year's Act to include measures to deal with this problem and to take away the right of a child to join a single parent. This action has had substantial effects. It is too early to say what will be the long-term effect of the change, but the initial consequences have been most marked. In the figures for April, May and June, there were only 19 boys aged 14 to 15 who were admitted to join a single parent, and only 70 to join both parents. These figures show a great reduction.
Another matter which caused us concern in the debate on last year's Expiring

Laws Continuance Bill was the question of elderly fathers. The raising of the qualifying age for admission from 60 to 65 has had a dramatic effect on the number of aged fathers who have been admitted. In the three months from April to June, only two dependants over the age of 65 were admitted. It is an extraordinary reduction.
Among the remedies proposed by hon. Members opposite is one, which the right hon. Member did not make on this occasion but he certainly did in an earlier article, to reduce the age of admission of children. He is, as he said, worried about the numbers coming at the age of 14 or 15. The published statistics do not reveal the breakdown of ages of child dependants, but the survey to which I referred provided evidence that the 14–15 age group does not account for a disproportionately high percentage of dependants. I am speaking of the situation now, following the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. In fact, well over half of the dependants admitted were under 10, and the remainder are spread fairly evenly through the age group 10–15. In any case, it would be difficult to justify reducing the age below 16, and the numerical consequences of so doing would, I think, be slight. Apart from that, if we were to say that dependants could come in only at 13 or 14, that might mean that the children simply came in earlier rather than at a slightly older age. It might speed up the arrival, but would not affect the total numbers.
Now, the question of compulsory entry certificates. The Opposition appear to be committed to this approach. While it may have considerable advantages in reducing some of the difficulty which now arises when people appear at our ports with doubtful entitlement to admission—this is a real problem—the one thing it cannot do by itself is reduce or affect numbers of dependants coming here so long as those dependants have a right of admission. It would be interesting to know whether the Opposition would contemplate some limit to the issue of entry certificates and whether the statutory right of entry would be honoured under the obligatory certificate system, or whether they would take power to have a quota of certificates.
Hon. Members will recognise that it is really an administrative question whether


the decision is taken entirely in the country before departure or whether an opportunity is given for the decision to be taken at ports of entry. There is no question but that there is every advantage in the decision being taken overseas rather than cause the hardship which arises when people arrive at ports without entry certificates and are refused admission, but the transference of responsibility from the port to the overseas entry certificate office is simply a matter of administration and unlikely to affect actual numbers. It must be recognised that it would not affect numbers, though it may be more tidy administratively. There are advantages and disadvantages.
Now, the registration of dependants and the concept of compulsory registration. The Home Secretary has made clear that he is re-examining this possibility, although the idea has been tried once and found of little practical value. It is necessary to be clear what its value might be. So long as dependants continue to enjoy unrestricted statutory right of admission, no system of registration can have any effect in limiting numbers. It can provide information but it cannot limit numbers. It would not alter the rate at which the registered dependants would be admitted unless the Government were prepared to regulate the flow by a quota system.
So long as the dependants' statutory entitlement to come here is honoured, there is no way of regulating the flow which does not entail some interference with their freedom to come as they choose, and the possibility of prolonging their separation from parents, which would not accord with the spirit of the legislation. I recognise that information is important. If we had the information arising from registration, we should know a little more about what the tail of dependants is, but it would not deal with those who have already come here and would not, therefore, provide a complete answer. But, as I say, my right hon. Friend is examining the proposal again in view of the points which have been made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The question of repatriation was also raised. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) that unless there were very substantial inducements, this would not mean that any large number of people would return

home. The majority of those we are talking about are, whether some people like it or not, our citizens. They came here to settle, and they are here. There is no point in imagining that with just a little extra money in their pockets they will go back home. The House and the country must understand that for most of these people now this country is their home. We must treat them as our responsibility and our citizens. It is true that the Ministry of Social Security can provide assistance, and it may be that the additional publicity that the debates have given to this may mean that a rather larger number of people will take the opportunity of doing this. But I do not believe that there is any solution to be found in voluntary repatriation on a large scale.
This brings me to my last point, the question of the evasion of control. The Government are very anxious to ensure that the immigration control is maintained and is effective. That was why as recently as February, in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, we took a number of measures to tighten control and to remove some of the possibilities of evasion. I have already referred to some of them. We were concerned whether some youngsters were the age they said, and we were also aware of some evasion among old people. We made a legal obligation on would-be immigrants to come properly through the immigration control rather than in little boats and by other clandestine means, and these measures have been effective.
But there have been cases where one suspects that there may have been evasion, and we are trying to find a way to deal with them. The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West spoke of the question of fiancees. We are looking at this very carefully. There is reason to believe that some immigrants seek to use this as a means of gaining entry. We are anxious to ensure that if a marriage does not take place those who have been admitted under those circumstances are required to leave the country.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is too early to make sharp conclusions about the numerical results of the passing of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, but it is worthy of note that in the three months following its passing the number of dependants


admitted is substantially below the number for the same period last year, and the upward trend that we had seen is at present downwards. That is only over a brief period, and we shall know more in November, when we shall have had a six-month period instead of only a three-month period.

Sir D. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is misquoting me. I said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) had pointed out that the 1968 Act had so far apparently had only a marginal effect, and a study of the figures I have seen for March, April and May seems to bear that out.

Mr. Ennals: That is what I am saying. I am saying that although it is marginal it has had the effect of producing a lower figure of dependants over that period—11,000 compared with 13,000 last year. The reduction has come from a fall in the number of aged dependants and the number of boys coming to join a single parent, and I do not think that any of us imagined that this could reduce the main bulk of the dependants who are coming. I have made it clear that it is not simply by administrative means that we can do this. It could be done only by actually removing the category of dependants who can join those who are here, or limiting it.
Reference was made to social problems. There are some, though they are sometimes greatly exaggerated. When hon. Members feel that they must express concern—and I am referring to hon. Members who are not here—they deepen the concern. But there are social problems, and it was for this reason that my right hon. Friend announced the urban programme on Monday. Some people thought it was the first assistance that we were giving to local authorities. But it was the present Government and not the previous one who in 1966 introduced the Local Government Act, which provides assistance to local authorities, and we are now proposing substantially to broaden this by the programme that has been announced.
I thank the hon. Gentleman and assure him that the Government are by no means complacent in looking at the admittedly difficult problems of immigration. Also, we are not complacent about immigration

control and seek to ensure that it is effective, but we believe that there is a fundamental principle—not a privilege but a right—that it would not be proper to take away, that of a mother and her children to join the father who is already in this country.

Orders of the Day — LAND COMMISSION

5.26 a.m.

Sir John Foster: I wish to address the House upon the function of the Land Commission. You will be relieved to hear, Mr. Speaker, that my speech deals with only a very narrow point. I am not concerned with the criticisms that the Conservative Party made of the establishment of the Land Commission—that it would send up the price of land and create an unnecessary establishment of extra civil servants.
I am a director of a company which entered into a transaction, and it received a communication from the Commission saying that it had been notified of the event described in the letter which accompanied the note and was considering:
whether you may be liable to betterment levy in respect of that event, and in order to arrive at a preliminary decision as to liability it is necessary to have further information. Will you, accordingly, answer the questions in the letter, which are of a factual nature. For your guidance notes on the questions are printed on the reverse side of the perforated sheet which may be detached and used for your reply. Members of the Commission's staff will be glad to assist you in answering these questions if you are to call at the regional office (preferably by appointment)".
It adds that if one seeks professional advice, the Commission will pay the fees incurred, only if liability to levy is established.
What was the transaction? The rather formidable questionnaire which accompanies this is headed:
Betterment Levy
Section 43 Land Commission Act, 1967".
There is a long reference with about 12 letters and numbers, and it says:
The Commission have been notified of the transaction described below as required by Section 37 of the Land Commission Act 1967. As you may be liable for betterment levy in respect of this transaction will you please give the information requested below quoting in your reply the reference shown at


the head of this letter.… The details of the notification are as follows:
Transfer of fee simple of 29·5 square yards, land off the easterly side of Audlem Road, and forming part of the Parkfield Estate, Nantwich, on 28th May 1968 to Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board for the sum of £25.
I hasten to add that I have the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris)—and his support—for raising the matter. At this late hour his constituency might be confused with mine—Northwich.
The 29·5 sq. yds. is about 18 ft. by 15 ft. It is the size of a smallish office. The land was sold as the site of a pylon for £25.
The questions which must be answered are formidable. I will not weary the House be detailing all of them, but some are worth reading. Question 3 asks,
Was any part of the sum mentioned above—

(i) paid in respect of severance or other injurious affection of any other land in which you own an interest, or
(ii) paid to any person other than yourself?

Does the sum mentioned above take into account any increase in value, consequent upon this transaction, of any other land in which you own an interest? If so, please give particulars.
Did you acquire your interest in the land on or after 1st July 1948?
Please give particulars of any income received from the property …
What was the land being used for before the transaction?
In fact, cows were using it for the needs of nature.
Do you claim an allowance in respect of Estate Duty paid? If so, please state the name and the date of death of the person in respect of whose estate the duty was paid …
Do you claim a deduction in respect of Capital Gains Tax or Corporation Tax …?
If you own an interest in any other land for which no compensation for severance or other injurious affection has been paid and which you claim has been depreciated in value in consequence of the acquisition, please give brief particulars including sufficient details to enable such land to be identified.
This is a scandal. It cannot be said that it was a mistake because at the top it states what the transaction was—
Transfer of fee simple of 29·5 square yards … for the sum of £25.
If we assume that the land was worth nothing—not an assumption which was true in fact—the maximum which the

Land Commission would be entitled to receive would be 40 per cent. of £25. But many other considerations enter into it.
I understand that this is not an isolated instance. The Land Commission takes notice of any betterment levy of more than £5. It is rather like the exemption from Capital Gains Tax for a gain of £50. One has to calculate the amount of the betterment levy to see whether one falls below the exemption limit of £5.
I do not want to be petulant at this hour. The scandal speaks for itself. It must have cost a lot of money to send out this form and for civil servants to look at the notification under Section 37 of the Act and to establish what was the assessment. Suppose we took this seriously—and we have to do so—and filled in all the particulars. All this is merely leading up to a preliminary decision whether there is liability, and after that preliminary decision comes the fight between us and the Land Commission whether any amount is due at all. A point of law could be just as vigorously maintained on each side as if the amount were £25,000. The amount concerned does not make any less the validity or otherwise of the points of law.
I raise this matter because it shows bureaucracy gone mad. One of the criticisms which we make of the Government is that they have increased the number of civil servants beyond reason and that the way in which legislation has been drafted in many cases leads to a plethora of form filling and questionnaires. Some 17 or 18 years ago in my constituency I was criticising the then Labour Government saying that the advent of that Labour Government had meant that many forms had to be filled in and that the time of fanners was taken up in form filling instead of in agriculture. A voice at the back of the hall said, "As a farmer I have so many forms to fill in that I have had to engage two new shorthorn typists." That comment was received well by the agricultural community.
I am sure that the Minister will say that it must be ascertained whether any amount is due and that there are bound to be borderline cases. But surely there should be a rule whereby an official at a certain level in the Land Commission is empowered to draw a pencil stroke through a case where it is obvious to him that the amount to be recovered


is not worth fighting for. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really think that we should fill in all these answers and continue with the correspondence in such cases? One is tempted to fill them up facetiously in such trivial transactions.
There are many cases where the local authority is responsible for delay. For example, preliminary consent may have been given but final consent comes after the due date. The result is that the man finds he has to pay a big sum in betterment levy perhaps only because the relevant committee of the local council met on a Thursday instead of a Tuesday.
In a case in my constituency, the Chairman of the Commission wrote to say that this was the luck of the draw, that it was rather like taxation in that a particular date was fixed and there was nothing to be done about it. But it is hard that a betterment levy should depend not on anything the man himself does but on whether the local council's action takes place slowly or quickly.
We are justified in bringing to the attention of the House the work of the Land Commission in this small particular, which is symptomatic of the way of bureaucracy. It is rumoured that the Land Commission has not enough to do and these cases indicate that this is true. While the hon. and learned Gentleman may not be able to give satisfaction in this debate, I hope that he will take these things to heart and see whether some reform cannot be made in the functioning of the Commission.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: The House is indebted to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-wich (Sir J. Foster) for drawing its attention to the madness of bureaucracy under the Land Commission. He should not view this madness with surprise, because it is a natural corollary of Socialist legislation that the country should be encumbered with bureaucratic processes of this kind. Those of us who are practitioners in the law are only too painfully aware of this. Our professional experience is that, whenever we have a Socialist Government, bureaucracy and red tape abound and it becomes a burden and nightmare for practitioners in many cases to advise their clients. My hon. Friends have criticised the creation of

the Land Commission from the outset. We doubted whether it was capable of achieving the objectives set for it; of making land available for development purposes and the lowering of the price of land. We were told in the White Paper that those were the main objectives.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot): Would the hon. Gentleman point out where in the White Paper it was said that the Land Commission would lower the price of land?

Mr. Rossi: That point was made by the Labour Party throughout the General Election campaign.
When the Measure establishing the Land Commission was being debated, my hon. Friends became amazed at the complexity of the new law that was being proposed. We doubted its intelligibility and we forecast grave problems of interpretation and practice. My hon. and learned Friend gave a classic example of this.
I have been handed a file by a firm of estate agents in Leeds. This firm was engaged in negotiations with the district valuer there for the sale to Leeds Corporation of three houses for the total price of £35. When completed, that transaction was followed by a letter and questionnaire of the kind quoted by my hon. and learned Friend. Not unnaturally, when the estate agents received this communication, the firm doubted the necessity for it and wrote to the Land Commission accordingly. The company received a reply from the regional controller saying:
… the District Valuer has informed me that there may be realisation of development value in the sale of the above land.
To that the estate agents replied:
… will you please ask the District Valuer to state his reasons for assuming that there may be 'realisation of development value in the sale of the above land'".
To that the firm received what I can only describe as this classic reply:
… the District Valuer … is unable to say at this stage whether development value arises; on the other hand he is unable to say that it does not.
The estate agents, prompted to reply, answered in these terms:
Thank you for your letter … from which it appears that the District Valuer's uncertainty as to whether or not development value


arises in this case is the basic reason why we (and yourselves) must waste our time on this matter … Will you please point out to the District Valuer that the sum of £35 paid by the Corporation for the land in question was based on a figure of 4s. per sq. yd., which is an arbitrary price fixed by the District Valuer himself for compensation purposes in those cases where the site is zoned for residential re-development and is incapable of such development by reason of the By-Laws.
If the district valuer himself fixed this arbitrary price for this land, how was he to advise the Land Commission that he was unable to say whether or not the price contained an element of development value?
The correspondence continued along these lines for a few weeks and ultimately the firm of estate agents thought that it might as well communicate direct with the district valuer, and this it did, quoting the previous correspondence it had had with the Land Commission. The district valuer replied on 22nd December saying:
In reply to your letter of the 19th December, the quotation you give from the regional controller's letter does not state the position correctly.
Apparently the regional controller had not understood the position.
This was followed by an apology from the regional controller who said:
I can only apologise and say that this arose through my unfamiliarity with the valuation terms.
The correspondence continues further in this vein, until the firm, feeling that it had wasted enough time and effort, filled in the form. It pointed out that it had received a number of other forms, for other clients, in respect of other land. It then received the somewhat curious reply from the regional controller that although it was not returning the forms for that other land, no liability for the levy arose in respect of those other claims. The firm terminated the correspondence with this letter:
We are interested to note that the Commission is of the opinion that no liability to levy arises in respect of the sale of the above premises to the Corporation, in view of the information at present before it. We find this of particular interest in view of the fact that we told you in our letter of 1st February that we had your form concerning this transaction in our possession, and did not propose to complete it until the Commission had dealt with the houses which were the subject of that letter, and of the completed form which we sent in. It would appear, therefore, that the Commission is able to form

an opinion without requiring the information called for in your forms, and we presume, therefore, that there will be no need to complete them in future.
Will the Minister say whether it is necessary, in view of this lamentable case, for practitioners to have to waste their time, and their client's money, filling up forms for transactions of £35, when the district valuer has fixed the price of the land, and yet is uncertain whether there is any development value contained in the price, and when the regional controller does not know what the terms mean?
How do the Government expect normal commercial transactions to proceed when ordinary people are to be tied and trammelled with red tape over fiddling little transactions that can produce only a minimal amount of revenue? Is it any wonder that in 1967–68, £463,000 was collected in betterment levy, at a total collecting cost of £2·3 million? It cost £5 for every £1 of levy collected and it required something in the region of 1,500 civil servants to do the work.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Perhaps the hon. Member would point out that, in addition to this figure, the cost of collection does not include the cost of wages of staff in the Revenue Department?

Mr. Rossi: This is very reminiscent of the ill-fated land tax of Lloyd George. It cost approximately the same to collect £5 million for £1·5 million, and was abandoned after a time, in 1930. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) is not on very strong ground here—the Liberal Party criticising the Labour Party on a matter of this sort.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member is wrong anyway.

Mr. Rossi: I will leave the Minister and the hon. Gentleman to fight that one out. I have given him enough to answer. How can he justify an imposition of this kind on the country, and to what good purpose is it?
That is not an end of the matter. Other anomalies are arising all the time. There was the recent example of the reference to the Parliamentary Commissioner by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). A £460 levy


was charged in two cases when there was a net profit on the sale of land of only £40. How can that be justified? The Minister had to make an extra-statutory concession. He has waived part of the levy. But one doubts the legality of this matter. Has he the power to do these things? One wonders whether it would be correct to bring forward amending legislation to deal with the anomalies.
There are other examples of frustration being caused by the operation of the Land Commission Act. An example was brought to my attention the other day concerning the simple question of a change of user of premises. There was no question of material development under the town planning Acts. It was merely a question of a series of leases and the final tenant wishing to change the user. Owing to the way in which the leases were drawn, he could not do this without a variation being made in the terms of his lease, and this had to be followed through the line of several under-leases and head leases back to the freeholder. As the Minister knows, this would involve a Case F charge, which in turn would require an assessment of levy under Case B as though a new lease were being granted. The freeholder, the head lessor and the sub-lessor refused to entertain the idea, because if they agreed to meet the sub-sub-tenant, who was no concerns of theirs, and granted the permission for which he asked they would be charged the levy and no benefit would result for them. The property has been rendered sterile because of the way in which the Land Commission Act is operating.
One hears complaints from developers concerning Case C. One cannot but feel that much useful development is being discouraged through uncertainty about the way in which the levy is likely to affect the finances of a particular transaction. Far from releasing land for development, the Act is having the opposite effect, because it is discouraging people from bringing forward land for development purposes. All the while the fear of the betterment levy, the prospect of the charge, is causing land prices to soar. This has been the subject of Parliamentary Questions, but the Minister has been singularly uncommunicative. The evidence from estate agents, the

financial Press and the property gazettes shows that land prices have risen 20 per cent. as a direct result of the imposition of the levy. In addition, there is the appalling waste of manpower in the Civil Service having to deal with all these forms and in the estate agents and legal professions having to try to meet the complexities of this entirely unnecessary legislation.
A nastier situation is arising which was the subject of a Question only two days ago, when the Minister admitted that there were coming to his attention cases in which the Land Commission Act was being used for blackmail purposes. Developers have been saying to people with a little land attached to their houses which could be developed, "We want to buy your land and our price is so much". Perhaps the owner does not want to sell, or he may think that the price is nonsensical. It may be a large garden attached to a house. When he refuses the offer, the developer says, "If you do not sell to me, I shall say to the Land Commission, 'Here is land ripe for development which the owner is holding back', and the Land Commission can compulsorily purchase the land from you at its own price. So you had better accept my offer while the going is good". The Minister knows that this is happening. He has deplored it on the Floor of the House. This is the type of situation that the Act is bringing about.
The case for the abolition of the Land Commission is becoming overwhelming. If the Minister will not do anything about it, if he will not have second thoughts, we will when the country gives us the opportunity to do this.

Dr. Winstanley: I had not intended to intervene. I do so on one point only. I am perhaps unwise to rise to try to assist the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who repudiated my help and then turned in a rather extraordinary fashion on the late Mr. Lloyd George, for reasons which were not immediately apparent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken. He cannot speak twice on a Second Reading.

5.56 a.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot): However many times


the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) intervenes, and we always like hearing from him, he would still be wrong on this point. What was being discussed was the cost of collecting the levy. The figure quoted by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) was about £2½ million. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that figure includes both the apportioned costs of the Land Commission itself attributable to the levy and the costs of services provided by other Departments, which includes those services provided by the Inland Revenue. The fig ares, taken from the Civil Estimates, for 1968–69, are as follows: Land Commission, £1·3 million; other Government Departments, £1·2 million; total £2·5 million. I hope that that answers the point which was worrying the hon. Gentleman, even though he did not have the chance to make it.

Dr. Winstanley: When I asked in a Parliamentary Question which was the cost of the work done by the Inland Revenue, I was told that the information was not available. I gather that it now is available. I am grateful for the information.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman asserted in his earlier intervention that the figure quoted by the hon. Member for Hornsey did not include the cost of the services provided by the Inland Revenue. I am pointing out that the hon. Gentleman was mistaken. This is something that can happen to all of us. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is glad, that he now has the facts.
In view of the hour, it is not surprising that the criticisms raised by hon. Members opposite of the Land Commission should have been what I hope they will not mind my describing as relatively trivial points. It was not until the last few moments of his peroration that the hon. Member for Hornsey managed to bring himself to challenege some of the serious matters with which the Commission deals and to suggest that the Commission was not performing a useful function and should be abolished. I propose in the short time available to me to confine most of my remarks to the more serious aspect of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) dealt with a case which I suspect he would hardly regard as typical—the sale of 29 sq. yards of land for £25. I hardly think that that is a typical land transaction. The hon. Member for Hornsey spent the greater part of his speech telling us that some correspondence had taken place relating to the sale of a parcel of land for £35. These are hardly ordinary commercial transactions in land.

Mr. Rossi: These are very typical transactions. The case I quoted was that of the compulsory purchase of three small properties in Leeds at site value. That is going on up and down the country the whole time. Until the law of compulsory purchase compensation is changed, these small sums will continue to be paid; property is being expropriated for next to nothing; and then the owners suffer the added insult of having to fill up these forms, with the danger of having a betterment levy charged. This is the complaint, and it is more than a small, insignificant matter.

Mr. MacDermot: I repeat, the size of the transaction referred to by the hon. Gentleman is hardly typical of transactions in the sale of land that are taking place.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northwich recognised that whatever one draws as the dividing line and says that it is not worth collecting sums below that amount, one gets cases at the borderline where there will be nuisance involved for people in having to fill up forms to establish which side of the borderline a particular transaction falls. I do not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests should be the appropriate borderline, but he indicated that the Land Commission does not proceed to levy in cases where it appears that the amount concerned will be less than £5. I think that is a fairly reasonable approach. If there is any evidence of hardship being caused by having a figure at that level, certainly I will be prepared to consider that evidence. I do not feel that the particular case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman drew the attention of the House is likely to cause any hardship or would support an argument for altering that level.
On the more important and major issues, the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said that from the start the Opposition had challenged the objectives of the Land Commission and doubted whether the Land Commission would be able to help to realise those objectives.
The first objective was to secure for the community a share of the realised betterment in land, that betterment having been created by the community rather than by the land owner. We are still not clear whether the Opposition accept that as a laudable objective that should be maintained. We know that some hon. Gentlemen opposite have expressed support for it and have said that they thought it right, but we have not yet had any official statement from the Opposition. If the hon. Gentleman is in a position to state now and commit his party on whether they believe that it is right to have a system of collection of betterment, I will gladly give way.

Mr. Rossi: I thought that the position had been made abundantly clear, that this was a matter that could be dealt with in the capital gains system as a matter of taxation as capital gains; and not in the way and under the concept and philosphy of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. MacDermot: It has not been made clear that that is the intention. There have been suggestions by particular hon. Gentlemen opposite, but there has been no statement that that is the official policy of the party opposite. If it is, it would mean exceedingly wide loopholes, because many of the transactions which are dealt with and which give rise to the to the realisation of betterment are not occasions of charge on Capital Gams Tax. Also, the rate of Capital Gains Tax is lower than that of betterment levy and lower than what people who have given thought to the matter have generally recognised to be the sort of reasonable rate at which there should be any collection of betterment.
The second objective was that that the Land Commission should help to bring land forward for development to help reduce the land shortage and to help restrain prices of land.
I will deal with each of those in turn. First, recovery of betterment. The attacks of the Opposition are directed to

the fact that in the initial stages of the betterment levy relatively small sums are being collected and that the costs of collection, therefore, are high. It is wholly unfair and unreasonable to make a false comparison between the cost of collection of a tax in its initial stages and the cost of collection of other taxes which have been established for some time and are in full operation.
In the first year the amount that is collected will be very small, and all the more is that so when, as in this case, very generous transitional provisions were written into the Bill, and indeed were pressed for by the Opposition. One reason for that was to prevent any sudden effect on the land market which could hold up and influence the supply of land. Those transitional provisions have had their effect, and the supply of land has continued smoothly without being clogged up as hon. Gentlemen opposite predicted it would be by the introduction of the betterment levy, so it does not lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite to seek to make this false point about the cost of collection.
We had, of course, to set up the machinery to collect, and the levy is now proceeding to come forward at a steadily increasing rate.

Mr. Rossi: rose—

Mr. MacDermot: I do not propose to give way until I have finished this.
Receipts to date have totalled about £1½ million, and outstanding assessments amount to about a similar sum. The estimates for 1968–69 are receipts of £8·3 million, and assessments of £10·8 million. Inevitably these assessments can be only a very general estimate. There are so many imponderable factors, and in particular the receipts will depend on the percentage of cases on which the assessments are contested.
It will be some years before the levy builds up to its full rate, the reason being that virtually all stocks of land held by builders at the time of the introduction of the levy are covered by the exemption provisions. But it should build up steadily, and when the levy reaches its full estimated rate of about £80 million a year the costs of collection ought not to be appreciably different from those at present. On that basis the cost of collection will then be a little over 7d. in


the pound, which cannot be regarded as an unreasonable rate, and it compares favourably with the costs of collection of other taxes. One should bear in mind in this connection that taxes which are levied—as betterment levy is—for social purposes every bit as much as for purposes of revenue collection often tend to be higher in their cost of collection than taxes which are levied purely for the purpose of revenue raising.
I turn, now, to the second objective, which is; to bring land forward for development. I have been struck by the silence of the Opposition in recent weeks on the subject of the Land Commission's land acquisition programme. I used to be pestered with Questions about how many acres the Land Commission had acquired here, there and everywhere, at a time when hon. Gentlemen opposite knew that the land acquisition programme had not got under way, land acquisition being a lengthy process, and the Land Commission naturally having to take stock of the position and find out the facts before it proceeded to acquire land. But since the Opposition have realised that the position is changing, Questions have ceased and the attacks have ceased. Now, suddenly, they swing their attack and say how unfairly this is operating on the owners of land who are being blackmailed to sell their back gardens.
I shall come to that in a moment, but let us first get a few of the facts about the land acquisition programme. As 1 told the House the other day, more than 1,100 acres of land have been acquired, or are subject to binding contract, or are subject to compulsory purchase procedures which have been launched. It might be of interest to put on record some analysis of the type of cases in which land is being acquired so that one can see the useful purposes which the Land Commission is serving.
First, there are cases where land ripe for development is being withheld from the market by an owner who is not developing for himself—what is sometimes called, perhaps emotively, land hoarding. An example of that among the land being acquired is a farm in Essex on which the Commission have put a draft compulsory purchase order. It is about 51½ acres in extent. The Commission is doing that because although the land is

ripe for development the principal landowner refuses to sell and the Commission is proposing to acquire it to enable it to be developed by private builders. The Commission is even prepared in exceptional cases to use its powers where land is held by a builder who is not bringing it forward at what the Commission regards as a satisfactory rate. That is the case with a site at Killearn, Stirlingshire, where it is launching compulsory purchase procedures in relation to the 52 acres held by a builder.
Perhaps more frequently there are cases where the land is in many different ownerships and where the Commission, by assembling several sites together, is able to ensure a good and properly planned development instead of piecemeal development. There is a site at Canal Lane, Stanley, Yorkshire, where about 34½ acres are being acquired by the Commission for that purpose. Again, at Earls Barton, in Northamptonshire, it has launched compulsory purchase procedures in relation to 24½ acres to be assembled in that way.
At Congleton, Cheshire, similarly, about 13½ acres are being acquired. This is a case of some interest, because it is one where the local planning authority had previously refused planning permission for piecemeal development by the owners of the property but is now willing to give permission for the orderly development of the whole area—something which could not have been achieved without the intervention of an agency such as the Commission. Similarly, at Lichfield, Staffordshire, a much larger site of 230 acres has been made subject to a draft compulsory purchase order with a view to comprehensive development — again where the local authority had refused permission for piecemeal development.
Then there are cases where the Commission, by assembling the larger sites, can ensure the proper phasing as well as the proper planning of development. This may be an extremely important matter for local authorities, with implications that phasing can have for them in the provision of services. An example of that is 169 acres at Oaktree Lane, Mansfield, which the Commission is assembling, mostly by agreement but in part by compulsory purchase procedures.
Another interesting case is a site of about 99 acres at Poplars Farm, Bradford—a site for which the local authority had previously been negotiating but had abandoned its interest in the site. The local authority's planning permission for flat development had inhibited any alternative private development of the site, but the Commission was able to negotiate a new planning permission for a form of development more acceptable to the builders, who were interested in the land thus enabling the land to be brought forward for development.
Then there are cases where the Commission can step in and preserve for the public purse the development value of the land being disposed of by a public authority. I told the House a short time ago of one example of this—Horn-church Airfield, Essex—where about 194 acres of land are surplus to Ministry of Defence requirements. Eventually that land will be required for housing and schools, but for some years it will be required for gravel extraction, and the development can take place only after the gravel extraction. The Commission was able to step in and acquire the land, and it can lease the land out for gravel extraction and will in that way retain for the public purse the benefit of the later realisation of the development value of the land for building purposes. Another example is in East Craig, Edinburgh, where 95 acres in the ownership of the Secretary of State for Scotland are being disposed of, and by taking over the Commission will be able to release parts of the site in stages for development in an orderly way.
Finally, there are cases where the Commission can perform important agency functions. It is clearing, or seeking to clear, under a draft C.P.O., some 94 acres at Shostock Farm, Walsall, the land being required for Aston University, which has itself no powers of compulsory purchase. At Houghton-le-Spring, 14 acres are subject to a compulsory purchase order to acquire and assemble land on behalf of the local authority which did not itself have the staff to handle the acquisition of the large numbers of houses and shops involved.
Again, at Erskine, the Commission is being able to help on the staff side in assembling and acquiring some 600 acres

of land, which is subject to a draft C.P.O., required for town development being undertaken by the Renfrewshire County Council for Glasgow overspill. The Commission has offered to help in that way on an agency basis authorities which want to acquire derelict sites in order to improve them with the benefit of the grants that are available to them.
These examples I am giving and the figures I have quoted represent only a small part of the Land Commission's work. A large number of other cases are being investigated, involving over 500 other sites and more than 20,000 acres. It does not follow, of course, that all these will go forward to acquisition. It often happens that as the result of the Commission's inquiries land is brought on to the market which would not otherwise have come forward for development. I saw some figures the other day relating to the West Midlands Region where they estimate that there are some 25 such cases, where 145 acres, valued at about £1·7 million, have been brought forward for development in that way.
Another most useful function which the Commission has been performing is helping to find out the true situation of land supply in this country. Builders have often been complaining, particularly in areas of high demand, that one of the factors restricting the supply of land is the shortage of land available in planning terms. It is the necessary controls over land use which, to some extent, are in this way themselves causing difficulties in the supply of land.
The difficulty up to now has been that there has not been any machinery by which the facts can be ascertained and the contentions of the planning authority on the matter can be challenged. The planning authorities have in general been able to point to planning consents, and say that for a given number of years ahead there is sufficient land available with planning consents, but it does not follow in practice that all the land for which planning consent has been given is, in a real sense, available for development. Some of it may be back gardens, parts of it may be areas for which there are no services and facilities available. Others may be land on which builders judge they cannot build houses economically and be able to dispose of them.
What the Land Commission has been able to do, and is doing, is to examine the


land-availability position. Following that, the Commission is engaged in discussion with local planning authorities to see where land can best be made available and brought forward for development. By working with the local planning authorities and programming the release of such land it should help to maintain an even flow of land for builders and to counteract to some extent the dangers of increases in prices which shortage of land can otherwise bring.
There has to be a national body to do this. It is not the job of local authorities to buy land and sell it to private builders phasing release in accordance with good planning. This is a major rôle for the Land Commission and one in which we are asking the local authorities to cooperate with it. Some of the instances I have given show that local authorities have realised the advantages for them in thus getting more orderly planning and the advantages for the builders in being able to get made available land which otherwise they would not be able to get, as a result of the Land Commission. That is in sharp contrast to what happened during the years when members of the Opposition were in power. They removed the development levy and put it back to the free market and this caused one of the biggest booms in land prices we have ever seen.
Whatever increases there have been in prices of land since this Government have been in office, they have been nothing to compare with the boom in the early 1960s when the price of land was doubled, and doubled directly as a result of measures instigated by the Government of hon. Members opposite and which they did nothing to restrain. We have tackled this and set up the Land Commission. The hon. Member said that everyone was agreed that the effect of betterment levy has been to push up land prices by at least 20 per cent. I prefer to rely on more accurate information on the Land Commission given in a conference, held I think by the R.I.B.A., where a person who had written a book on the levy— speaking from memory, I think it was by Professor Hilton—it was said that there was no evidence as yet to suggest that such increases in prices as have been taking place have been due to the imposition of betterment levy.
As hon. Members know, there are limited statistics available of increases in

land prices, but certainly all the indications are that in the last two years increases in land prices have moderated and they are nothing like the rate there was in the early years of this decade. I do not want to make extravagant claims for the achievements yet of the Land Commission. It is early days to judge of its success, but I think that I have shown in the figures I have given how the Land Commission is tackling the problems given to it and how that compares with the long years of inaction by the parry opposite.

Dr. Winstanley: For the sake of the record, would the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the information he gave on the cost of the Land Commission is wholly accepted but is contrary to the Written Answers to Questions given by him, by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and by the Minister of Public Building and Works on 12th December, 1967?

Mr. MacDermot: No, I would not accept that. If the hon. Member will send me those Answers, I will give him a considered reply.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (FINANCE)

6.24 a.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I welcome this opportunity to speak on the cuts in the school building programme and to say a few words about the general financing of education. I should like first to deal with the problem of the cuts in educational spending, which affect us harshly in North-East Essex and which, in spite of having to sit up all night, I am anxious to bring to the attention of the House.
The major capital building programme for 1968–69, originally prepared by the divisional executive of North-East Essex, totalled just over £2 million. The county education committee reduced the programme to nearly half for submission to the Department of Education and Science. The Ministry originally approved most of this programme, but in reviewing the list the Ministry slashed the figure of approved works to nearly £300,000, representing a cut of 77 per cent. This left work costing nearly £1¾ million outstanding from the programme originally prepared by the divisional executive.
There were 24 projects in the original programme. Fifteen of these were approved at county level, 13 received Ministerial approval generally, but only four were approved in the final Government list. This means that by 1970 we in North-East Essex will be 670 places short in our needs for education. This includes the loss of a new village school of 150 places, which has been slashed, and a proposed new primary school of 360 places.
I wish at once to ask the Minister of State whether similar cuts of 77 per cent. are being made in other parts of the country. Does the right hon. Lady realise that in the last 10 years we in North-East Essex have absorbed the equivalent of a new town without anything like the assistance that a new town gets? More and more residents are coming into North-East Essex, and schools must be provided for these new families. The cuts are cruel and harsh and, to me, a sign of completely incompetent government.
Side by side with one of the most modern and radical of the new universities, we find country children being denied the proper opportunities of primary education. This illustrates well the facts of the Government's spending on education. By 1970, the number of children at school since 1964 will have risen by 12 per cent., and much the greater part of the increase is due to the surge of births in 1955. One would, therefore, expect the costs of schools and related expenditure to rise disproportionately and to call for a slowing-down of public expenditure elsewhere, as the total of Government spending would not be forced up by the same amount.
In examining educational spending, however, one finds the educational spending on the schools, although the largest, is the slowest growing. The biggest growers are the universities at 33 per cent. over 5 years and, above all, further education at 58 per cent. over 5 years. I must ask the Minister whether it is really necessary to allow one-third of the total expected increase in all expenditure on education to go to the universities and to further education and to starve primary education. It is rather like building a village hall before the houses have been built.
I have been on record on many occasions as having said that there should be cuts in Government spending, but, surely, there are other economies which should be made without punishing our children so severely and getting priorities wrong in educational spending. I know that I should be out of order in this debate in talking about other economies in Government expenditure, but in a debate in the House on 17th April, 1967, I proposed economies in Government expenditure totalling between £500 million and £1,000 million, which did not include any cuts in education.
I understand that a possible cause of the cuts in North-East Essex is that the Government are having to spend more and more on educational provision to meet the needs of immigrant children. I estimate that since 1964, over 130,000 children have entered the country. I estimate that the building of primary and secondary schools for these immigrant children would cost £42½ million. The cost of primary and secondary education for a child is, at a conservative estimate, between £100 and £175 a year. All this gives an annual cost of educating the immigrant children entering this country since 1964 of about £15 million. Again, I think that that is a conservative estimate. At the independent school of which I am a governor, the fees for day boys are £330 a year.
Is it any wonder, therefore, that the the Government are having to cut back on their education spending when they have allowed as many as 130,000 extra children into this country since 1964? Their failure to act early enough on the question of the children and dependants of immigrants has aggravated the problem.

Sir Edward Boyle: I sympathise with much of what my hon. Friend says, but on as sensitive a subject as this we ought to have the facts clear. Presumably, the figures which he gives include a large number of children born in this country. If one considers those children, one ought also to consider the children of other immigrants as well, for example, the considerable growth of the Roman Catholic child population in the schools from immigrants of different racial groups.

Mr. Ridsdale: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I obtained these figures from the Home Office today. From the information given to me, I understand that the number of children entering since 1964 was 130,000. But I appreciate the second point which my right hon. Friend makes—

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): We do not want this to develop into a debate on immigration so that I have to reply to that as well. We had a debate on immigration earlier this evening. I wish merely to make one observation. Accepting the figures which the hon. Gentleman gives as right—I have not seen them—most of the children who entered this country in the past three or four years are children of parents who probably came some years ago. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, once a man has settled here, he should not have the right to bring his wife and children. These are probably children of men who entered some time previously.

Mr. Ridsdale: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I do not wish to dwell further on the problem. I pose it for inquiry because I am anxious about it and anxious also about the cuts which are being made in primary education in my own constituency. I am just not certain that some of the facts and stories which I have heard do not lead to the conclusion that there should be tighter controls in the Government's immigration policy than there are at present.
I hope that the Government will not aggravate our education problems by interfering with private education. Private education should be given all possible help. Two of the primary schools being built or in the pipeline in North-East Essex are church schools. Both are private commitments for which much of the money was found elsewhere. I know from my experience as a governor of an independent school what a great saving the private education can make for the Exchequer. In the light of the present economic situation, I hope that the Government will do nothing to interfere with private education. On the contrary, they should do more to encourage it so as to lighten the burden

on public educational standing. Any alterations, especially those proposed in the recent Newsom Report on the independent schools, can only lead to more burdens being put on the Government purse.
I want to say something about the financing of education through taxing property. We want a much more stategic plan than the piecemeal legislation we have been having to pay for the growing cost of education. The present position is leading to an increasing dependence on the national Exchequer for grants, and to putting a burden on householders, particularly the retired, out of all proportion to the amenities they enjoy for that expenditure. Having pinched and saved to pay for the education of their children they are now having to pinch and save to meet the educational charge in the rate burden, while those who enjoy the benefit of that education, and whose parents could afford a little more, are getting away with paying far less.
That is why I am anxious to see the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government published as soon as possible, and why I had a Question down to the Prime Minister today asking what thought is being given to local government finance. This is one of the most important subjects that face the House at present, far more important than the reform of the House of Lords. I want to see larger units of local government, and a sales tax used to help finance educational spending and take that burden off the rates. Such a charge would give councils a much-needed source for financing immediate educational needs, now so much hurt by the cuts in Government spending.
I hope that the Minister will be able to do something to alleviate the harsh cuts which are being made inNorth-EastEssex, totalling 77 per cent. of the original programme submitted to the Ministry. I hope that she will be able to do something to stop the avalanche of dependant children coming into the country, and that she will concentrate educational spending on primary education and not so much on universities and further education.
I underline again how vital it is, if the retired and those living on small fixed incomes are not to have to bear a completely unfair burden in financing education, and in order to give more flexibility


to those running our educational programme, that we press ahead as quickly as we can with the reorganisation of the financing of local government. I am sure that the country would benefit from the reorganisation for educational needs.

6.38 a.m.

Mr. William Hamling: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on introducing this important question. I understand that it is nearly six months—it certainly seems like six months—since the House last debated education. I feel that in this Session we have debated education far less than the importance of the subject warrants.
The title of the hon. Gentleman's subject seemed a little restricted, but despite the fact that he announced that he might be out of order if he went further, towards the end of his speech he perhaps went much further than the title might suggest. A good deal of what he said was quite unreal and unrelated to what the Government are doing. For example, when he talked about the burden of education on the rates no one might have supposed that no Government in the country's history has ever increased capital gains to local government services to the extent that the present Government have, and that the burden of public expenditure in local areas financed by the rates is less onerous now than it was four years ago. There has been massive increases in Government grants to local government services in the last four years. It must be remembered that the greatest single burden of local expenditure is on education. The hon. Gentleman talked of the Government "starving" primary education. That seemed a gross abuse of the English language. One of the first steps taken by the Government four years ago was to increase expenditure on primary school building as against universities and fur-building. The hon. Gentleman talked about the slow rate of increase in school building as against universities and further education. He should recognise that the massive increase in building in the technical field was made necessary by the fact that for so many years little was done.
One should look at school building over the last 20 years and ask how much has been spent on school building in that

time, on universities and on technical education, and one should particularly relate this to building in the other social services. I have a more than passing interest in the Health Service. There is no doubt that hospital building has not had the priority in the last 20 years that school building has had. It may well be that in a certain period of two or three years there has to be a slight overemphasis in another field to catch up on the gaps that have been noted.
The hon. Member spoke about immigrant children. One ought to balance that by pointing out that a great many children leave the country every year with emigrant families. It might be interesting if my right hon. Friend could indicate the estimated number of children who no longer need our education services because they have emigrated to Canada, Australia, the United States, New Zealand and so on with their families.
I hope we shall get the figures of expenditure on building in all fields of social endeavour in perspective. I mentioned the Health Service. One could ask, for example, how much has been devoted to slum clearance in the last 20 years and whether it is not time to look at the whole field of social building— education, health, housing and so on— to try to relate it to real needs. The Government have shown a much wiser attitude to development areas than some previous Governments have done and have thought of the social priority areas to a far greater extent than any previous Government have.
I said we ought to get this in perspective. I noted in a newspaper yesterday a reference to the Seebohm Report; it referred to a vast hidden ocean of desperate need among the vulnerable sections of our society being revealed in this Report—the sick, disabled, elderly and so on. It is astonishing that, depending on what Tory speaker is talking on what particular day, we get a call for a new priority on different occasions. Today at a quarter to seven in the morning it happens to be school building. I have no doubt that on another occasion another Tory will say that the Government have neglected the building of hospitals and that that should be the priority. It reminds me of a defunct newspaper, theNews Chronicle, which some years ago carried a leading article calling for the


building of houses to be the great priority in this country. A fortnight later they carried another editorial demanding that school building should be the priority. Name it—and that is their priority. But such an approach is unreal unless it is related to social endeavour generally.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Their greatest priority in the Conservative Party is cutting taxation.

Mr. Hamling: I will come to that in a moment, but my hon. Friend is absolutely on the ball.
Have we built enough houses, schools and hospitals? We all agree that we have not done enough, but the present Government have a finer record than any other Government in the history of the country in respect of educational expenditure and educational buildings.
The notice given by the hon. Member for Harwich is a little vague. I am not sure whether the hon. Member has in mind cuts in the financing of primary or secondary or further education or university education or over the whole field of education. There is no indication whatever that there have been cuts in educational expenditure under the Government because expenditure has gone on rising month by month over the last four years. How can hon. Members talk about cuts? One can say that a local authority has put forward a programme for £4 million and the Government have said, "We are sorry but you can have only one-tenth of that". That is not a cut. The fact that there is more building this year does not indicate a cut. That is an increase over the existing body of school building. How can one talk about cuts in that context? Have there been cuts in technical colleges? The hon. Member must admit that there have not been cuts.

Sir E. Boyle: Surely the moratorium in 1965 resulted in a considerable cut in technical college building—in programmes which we had announced before we left office. That was not disputed, and the cuts have never been made good.

Mr. Hamling: The right hon. Member is much too fair too overlook the fact that an announced programme is not buildings in existence. The present Government built the technical colleges and expanded them enormously. The right hon. Member would be the first

to admit that in the last four years we have seen the greatest expansion in building for technical education in the history of this country—not programmes, not words, not on paper, but schools and colleges. I used to work in one. What about the technical colleges which ought to have been planned in 1951 when the Conservative Party took over and which ought to have been built in 1961? That is a contrast which we should make. I will return to it in a moment. What do we mean by cuts? Are fewer schools being built today than at this time last year? The answer is "no". More schools are being built now than this time last year, more than in 1966 and more than in 1965.
Are fewer places at technical colleges being provided than last year? Again the answer is "no". More are being provided. Is less being spent on university building than last year? I am waiting for the voice of the U.G.C. to tell us.

Mr. Ridsdale: Less.

Mr. Hamling: The hon. Gentleman says "less". The hon. Gentleman should have a word with his right hon. Friend, who complains that the Government have given greater priority to university building than previously. Is the record of these four years of Labour rule worse than the record of the last four years of the Tory rule? Or is it better? I pause for an answer but answer there is none. If it is not worse, what do the Tories mean by saying that we have cut education? If it is better, why have they the cheek to say that we have cut it?
Are hon. Members opposite saying that educational building is not taking a fair proportion of the increase in the gross national product? There is no figure that they can quote which would support that contention. Educational expenditure is taking an increasing share, year by year, and a geometrical increase. That is the story of the last four years. Do the Opposition contend that this increased expenditure can go on regardless of the growth of the gross national product? The hon. Gentleman talked of cuts in educational expenditure. Teachers' salaries have gone up 21 per cent. in the last four years. That is educational expenditure. In what four years of Tory rule did they go up as much? In none.

Mr. Ridsdale: I was referring to cuts in the school building programme.

Mr. Hamling: The hon. Gentleman also talked about cuts in the financing of education. He cannot have it both ways. Which is the Tory voice to which we should listen this morning? A pamphlet was put out by the Industrial Policy Group called "Government Expenditure". It was prepared by the T.U.C. of the Tory Party. The Chairman was Sir Paul Chambers. The other members included: Mr. D. H. Barran, Chairman of Shell Transport and Trading; Sir George Bolton, of the Bank of London and South America; Viscount Boyd of Guinness's; Sir Stephen Brown, Chairman of Stone-Platt; Sir Nicholas Cayzer, a ship owner; Lord Cole, Chairman of Unilever; Sir Reay Geddes, Managing Director of Dunlop; Sir Cyril Harrison, cotton spinner and banker; Sir Maurice Laing, a builder; Mr. H. G. Lazell, Chairman of the Beecham Group; Sir Joseph Lockwood, Chairman of E.M.I.; Mr. A. F. McDonald, Chairman of The Distillers Company; Lord Netherthorpe, Chairman of Fisons; Sir John Nicholson, a ship owner; Mr. E. J. Partridge, Chairman of Imperial Tobacco; Lord Pilking-ton, Chairman of Pilkington's; Sir Peter Runge, Chairman of Tate and Lyle and a director of Vickers; Lord Sieff, President of Marks and Spencer; Mr. R. G. Soothill, Chairman of Turner and Newall; and our old friend from Scotland Sir William McEwan Younger, a brewer.
These people say that Government expenditure, particularly in the last four years, has gone up too fast, notably on education and other forms of social expenditure. They say that it must stop, the direct taxation must come down and that social expenditure must be cut.
Considering their views—these people who comprise the T.U.C. of the Tory Party—we are bound to wonder whom to trust; them or the hon. Member for Harwich. The hon. Gentleman wants us to spend more while these influential members of his party want us to spend less. The pamphlet states that in 1968–69 there will be increased educational expenditure of £75 million compared with 1967–68. Would the hon. Gentleman call that increase a cut? In 1969–70 there will be an increase of £83 million, according to

the pamphlet. Is that an increase or a cut? The pamphlet says:
This persistent growth of Government expenditure … made … devaluation inevitable … 
That is turning language upside down. It goes on to say that we need
… the reversal of the trend towards higher taxation for the provision on a rising scale of services which the taxpayer might prefer to pay for out of his own net income.
Who is right, the hon. Member for Harwich or the supporters of his party who were responsible for this pamphlet? According to the figures given in the pamphlet, in the last four years of Labour administration, expenditure on education went up by £550 million, whereas in the last four years of Tory rule it went up by £384 million.

Mr. Ridsdale: I did not say that Government expenditure as a whole should be increased.

Mr. Hamling: Did not the hon. Gentleman say that Government expenditure on education should be increased?

Mr. Ridsdale: Mr. Ridsdaleindicated assent.

Mr. Hamling: The Tory spokesman on health will demand that the Government spend more on hospitals; and the same can be said of demands for increased expenditure on social security, Service and other pensions, defence, roads and the rest. You name it, they want more—and they also want reduced taxation.
Who is the authentic voice of the Tory Party on education in the House? Is it the right hon. Member for Wolverhamp-ton, South-West (Mr. Powell), the hon. Member for Harwich or the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle)? Hon. Members may recall a speech made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West at the annual conference of the Conservative National Advisory Committee on Education at Overseas House on 22nd June, 1968. He said:
On any view, the margin by which public expenditure has overshot the growth of the national income is the major cause of the disastrous financial events of the last four years, which still pursue us. … The most important single driving force in all this has been the upward thrust of expenditure upon education.
Would the hon. Member for Harwich echo that sentiment? I do not see how he could, since he is calling for an even


greater threat to the economy, according to his right hon. Friend, who went on:
…. of all political sacred cows education is the most sacred and the most cowlike …
He added:
… those who presume to discuss, not to say question, the size and rate of increase of educational expenditure, as I am bound to do, must expect to be denounced as barbarians and enemies to all progress and sound learning.
I do not know where the Tory Party stands on this question. The big growers are the universities—33⅓ per cent. over five years. As I indicated, this trend has been, to some extent, modified by this Government and the U.G.C. has complained about this reversal of policy by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ridsdale: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that nowhere in that speech did my right hon. Friend say that there should be cuts in primary education?

Mr. Hamling: I know, but what he did say was that people who could afford to pay for education should be permitted to do so. That applies to parents of children at primary schools too. It may be that the hon. Gentleman has a particular love for primary schools, but one must look at the whole question. He may say today that primary schools ought to be favoured, but one of his hon. Friends will get up tomorrow and complain bitterly about the cuts that the Government are making in university expenditure, and will demand that the U.G.C. should become the sacred cow.
When my own University Chancellor came and spoke at the annual dinner of the London Branch of the University of Liverpool Society, what did he complain about? He complained bitterly about the actions of this Government in cutting back universities so that technical colleges could get a little more. The Conservative Party has supported the U.G.C. in its attitude. It cannot have it ten ways at once. The Government have a tremendous educational record. Let no one deny it. In the last four years despite the economic difficulties, there has been tremendous expansion in university expenditure. Expansion may have been greater in one area than another, but in every case there have been advances, and it is about time that this House said so, with

a loud voice, so that people will not get away with the idea that this Government are cutting social expenditure when the opposite is the truth.

7.3 a.m.

Mr. Frederick Silvester: I am not in a position to query all the facts put forward by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), but I have here HANSARD for the last debate on education. He was asking whether there was any example of a cut. The previous Minister here quoted the programme of school building for the current year as £129 million as compared with £134 million. That is a cut. That includes £8 million set aside for the comprehensive schools, which had to be bailed out as a result of cutting school milk.

Mr. Hamling: Would the hon. Member tell me of a single year, when a Conservative Government were in power, when as much building was being carried out as is being done this year under this Government?

Mr. Silvester: I think that I am right in saying in no year was the school building programme as high as it is this current year.

Mr. Hamling: Then how can the hon. Member say that it is a cut?

Mr. Silvester: With respect, that was not what the hon. Gentleman was saying. We were discussing a cut this year as against last year, a cut on the Government's programme—was that not so? I am simply quoting the words used by the previous Minister.

Mr. Hamling: The hon. Member must be honest with himself and the nation. A cut of £4 million this year as against last year ought not to allow him to get away with the fact that he is hiding from the nation the tremendous increase in building this year as against last year.

Mr. Silvester: I did not propose to pursue this line of argument until I heard the hon. Gentleman's speech. I take the view, which he expressed himself, that there has been an educational advance when both parties have been in power since the war and that priorities have varied from one year to another. It is not a sensible argument on the hon. Gentleman's part to say that we should


expect to judge this year with five years ago when we would all sensibly expect social programmes and others to increase as the years go by as the wealth of the country increases.
The question which the House must ask itself and which I am sure asked himself is whether at any time a cut in one year as against another is having a particular serious effect, or whether the priorities between one area and another are right. Of all the economies which the Government were forced to make at the beginning of this year, they come under particularly grave criticism in education. It does not depend on juggling with statistics, as the hon. Member did.
I would advance two fairly simple reasons for that conclusion. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), I would make a special plea for education in these specific circumstances which the Ministry could reasonably accept. The effect of the cut depends not only on its absolute figure, but on the policy which the Government are requesting local authorities to conduct. Therefore, a very small adjustment may have a disproportionately bad effect. One of the economies which the Government could not permit themselves to make in the last batch was to cut out the £8 million they set aside for the comprehensive schools.
When the Government came to power, their view, properly, was that they wanted to proceed with reorganising secondary education. They forced the pace on that policy and, therefore, obliged local authorities to gear their programmes in the foreseeable future to that policy. This did not merely affect the reorganisation of secondary education; it affected the plans which the schools had for raising the school-leaving age and the priority which the local authorities gave as between primary and secondary education. Therefore, if later we say that because of the exigencies of the situation we must abandon raising the school-leaving age, we throw the whole of that planning into chaos. The Government, even in this difficult situation in January, felt obliged to maintain the £8 million for the comprehensive schools, although other crying needs had to go by the board.
May I give an example in my constituency of how this has worked out in

practice? I am delighted that in the last school building programme we have three projects which enable us to carry out the comprehensive scheme. If that had not been the case, we should have been "up the creek" at this time, because we could not postpone the scheme and we could not have carried it out properly without the money. But had we been asked whether we would rather have had these schemes now or to postpone the comprehensive scheme for a year and adopt another scheme which had to be left out, the local authority would, I am sure, have said, "Let us have the scheme", which I now propose to describe.
The scheme which has been left out which the Minister will receive when he gets the bids in August concerns a primary school, which has been on and off the list for years and was last on, which is in the middle of a redevelopment area where buildings are being pulled down and where the question of the security of the place is being made steadily worse. The whole redevelopment is being help up because the redevelopment of a factory is being stopped, and this is affecting the employment position in the factory.
In such circumstances, any local authority will say, "This is a specific situation facing us. We will build this into our programme and request the necessary funds". The Government say, "No. We want you to carry out our policy." If the Government say that, they must ensure that the funds are maintained for those purposes.
My second criticism is that the Government are transferring some of the economies from themselves to local authorities; they are shunting off some of their responsibilities. An obvious place to look for this is in the question of the leaving age. The previous Minister estimated that by 1970 the proportion of children who would voluntarily stay on would rise from 48 per cent. to 55 per cent. My local authority has introduced a scheme the cardinal point of which is that as many as possible should be encouraged to stay on. The scheme is not educationally very viable for, say, transfer at the age of 14 unless the children stay on. The Government have abandoned the programme for raising the leaving age, but the local authority must


continue to bear the burden of a higher voluntary school leaving age. Therefore, the local authority, and not the Government, is. bearing the burden.
Now, the 3 per cent. limit on the rate support grant. I understand the needs for economy. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West pointed out the importance of the education element in the rate. We are not talking about capital investment which can perhaps be postponed. We are talking about current expenditure on the maintenance of a service. In answer to a Question the Minister has stated that he estimates that an extra £8 million will fall on local authorities in respect of teachers' salaries in the current year. Experience has shown that the annual rate of increase needed to keep the services where they are is about 6 per cent.

Mr. Hamling: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the burden of education on the rates is greater now under this Government than ever before?

Mr. Silvester: I am sorry if I am not following the hon, Gentleman as he would wish. I do not seek to make this direct comparison. I am discussing the current situation. I am not even criticising the Government for making cuts, because I think that cuts are necessary. I am saying that in these circumstances the cuts which have fallen on education are especially unfortunate. As a result, there are indications from some authorities that the hiring of part-time teachers is slowing up. The Government are right to say that it is up to local authorities to decide where they will make their adjustments to fall within the 3 per cent. limit and they need not make them at any of the points I have indicated. If the Government want authorities to review expenditure as a whole and to make various reductions, they must expect local authorities to review their income as a whole.
At the same time as we are having a rate support grant maintained at no more than 3 per cent. increase, we are having local authorities burdened by not being able, for example, to adjust their rent rebate subsidies, such as the G.L.C. are currently experiencing. I make two points. First, because the Government have pursued the policy of stimulating their particular educational organisation

programme, they have an obligation to see that, by making local authorities pursue it, they do not damage other sides of education.
Secondly, by this particular kind of restriction on the rate support grant, they are putting a heavy burden on current expenditure in education, and this will be increasingly damaging as time goes on.

7.16 a.m.

Mr. Keith Speed: I am grateful, at this early hour of the morning, to be able to highlight what I believe is a desperate situation in my constituency where educational cuts are already causing considerable hardship and anxiety to hundreds, if not thousands, of my constituents living in Chelmsley Wood.
It is important to give a little background, because Chelmsley Wood is a large Birmingham overspill development in the course of construction which was authorised and was an act of Government policy by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government three years ago. The scale of the development is such that within the three years up to 1970 nearly 16,000 houses will be built to house a total population of 60,000, all within my constituency. My researches show that this is the fastest development of its kind certainly in Western Europe and probably in the world.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that the City of Birmingham builds and owns the houses, although the houses lie within the administrative County of Warwickshire, which is the local education authority. It would have been perhaps more fortunate three years ago if a new town corporation had been set up to cope with the development, but it was not, and we are faced with the situation as it is today.
In the early stages of the planning of this development in Chelmsley Wood the Department of Education and Science found that there were hundreds of school places available in the eastern part of Birmingham and it insisted at that time that reasonable use should be made of those places. It was reluctant to let Warwickshire build new schools in Chelmsley Wood while there were these places available. I believe that there was a


breakdown in communication, because many of the people moving out from Birmingham to Chelmsley Wood were not informed that this was to be the situation. Consequently, they hoped to be moving out to new houses and new schools, but they found that their children were having to go back to schools in the eastern part of Birmingham. Indeed, some of the very young children were having to travel quite considerable distances. This is already making the parents very angry.
The situation was made worse by the fact that some children attend the few new schools that have been built in Chelmsley Wood, particularly the primary school, while their next-door neighbours are having to travel quite a number of miles back into Birmingham to continue with their primary or secondary education. This has caused a feeling, which may or may not be justified, that the children going back into Birmingham are being treated as some form of second-class citizens. I have a deal of sympathy with the parents in this situation.
That was bad enough, but the situation is becoming critical. By the end of this year, 5,000 houses will have been built and there will be 5,000 more built in 1969. After allowing for all the children who can attend the Birmingham schools— and I believe that this is unsatisfactory, but it is an emergency solution in the present economic circumstances—the need for essential minimum additional accommodation over and above that already approved by the Ministry will be 1,400 secondary school places, and 3,500 primary school places by the end of 1969. These are considerable figures, on which a decision has to be taken very quickly indeed. If, in 1970, building continues at the pace that is forecast, this will mean a further 5,000 houses, and the need for still more school places.
In the original master plan for Chelmsley Wood as set up by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, the minimum educational requirements were to keep the provision of school places in line with the building of houses. This has now been abandoned because of the cuts in education. If these places and new schools are not forthcoming—and Warwickshire County Council has made urgent representations to the Minister— the outlook for literally thousands of Chelmsley Wood children is bleak.
They may have to go to schools miles away in all parts of Warwickshire and Birmingham. They will have to attend schools in completely different communities, and with different backgrounds from their own homes. I believe that this could gravely jeopardise their educational opportunities, apart from involving them in travelling considerable distances and the expense to somebody which that will involve. The educational considerations are paramount, and the position must be educationally damaging to the children.
Their parents are already angry, and if the Minister does not believe me I shall be delighted to send her many letters which I have received on this subject. They arrive day after day. Parents do not know where their children will be going next year, particularly for secondary education. They take the view, and quite rightly I think, that with a development which, by 1970, will be the size of a town like Bedford, or Warwick and Leamington combined, and which is being built in three years, their children are entitled to a good education in their own community. There are many children who, for emergency reasons, have to go to a neighbouring authority, and there are many thousands more whose parents do not know where they will be going.
I raised this matter with the Prime Minister on 16th May of this year. I asked whether the provision of schools and other essential services would have the same priority as houses being built at Chelmsley Wood, and the right hon. Gentleman replied:
My right hon. Friends"—
he meant the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Minister of Health—
will certainly co-operate in this matter, though the initiative lies with the councils concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1968; Vol. 764, c. 1395.]
Unless the Minister provides the cooperation of which the Prime Minister spoke, this exciting new development will be a social and educational disaster, because the local education authority has taken the initiative on many occasions, and as the right hon. Lady may be aware, is at the moment again making representations to her Department.
I believe that the situation at Chelmsley Wood is more serious than in any comparable area in the country. This is a


great imaginative scheme to help relieve the housing problem in Birmingham. The scheme was set up by the Government as an act of Government policy, and was authorised by the previous Minister of Housing and Local Government. If the Government are not now prepared to back their judgment by giving equal facilities for the development of education as for the building of houses, the long-term effects, the social disharmony, the frustration and anger of parents, but most important of all the lost educational opportunities of the children who, in every other respect, are living in wonderful houses and a wonderful environment, will be tremendous and this great experiment will end in disaster.

7.25 a.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: I am sure the House feels that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Speed) has performed a valuable service in raising this debate. I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides and also to the right hon. Lady and her advisers who have remained with us to take part in this debate at nearly half-past seven in the morning. There were moments during the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) when I was beginning to wonder whether it was worth it; still more when I listened to some of his rather hostile interventions in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester).
As he said, it is now several months since we debated the subject of education. I want to make one comment on the Government's record. I am quite ready to debate the record of the Conservative Government with the hon. Member for Woolwich, West. I base my case on the fact that the proportion of the national income devoted to education rose steadily under a Conservative Government, from 3·4 per cent. in 1955 to 5·4 per cent. 10 years later. During those years education was taking a steadily rising share of a gross national product which itself grew by 34 per cent. That is a record we have every reason to feel proud of.
I am not denying that there was much that remained to be done, and I always hoped that as the 1960s proceeded we would not lose the impetus of educational advance. The hon. Member for Wool-

wich, West does not meet the point just by drawing attention to the fact that more money is now being spent on education. Of course it is—because there are more children to educate. Let me give him a set of figures before he intervenes in my speech. Between 1963 and 1965, the primary school roll was up by 150,000; in 1966, by another 95,000, and in 1967 and 1968 by another 150,000 in each year.
It was the present President of the Board of Trade who said specifically in the debate on the Plowden Report, a year ago, that it was the amount of money that we devoted to educational improvements which was the measure of our priorities. It was in that context that we felt strongly about what we regarded as the very harsh treatment of education in the cuts in the early part of this year. I need not remind the Minister that it was no less an authority than Sir William Alexander who said, on 19th January, that the education service had suffered a very severe setback and that it would take a good many years before it recovered. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West referred to my right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, West (Mr. Powell) and asked who spoke for educational policy on this side of the House.
I do not want to sound immodest, but, just as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) made it clear that he speaks for the Opposition on race relations, if I am asked who speaks for Conservative policy on education I would not like there to be any doubt that it is the official spokesman on educational matters, namely, myself. If we are to bring my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West into the debate I hope that the hon. Member will read at some time what I thought was the excellent speech that my right hon. Friend made on the Newsom and Robbins Reports in January, 1964, an admirable speech which, in my view, not even its author has satisfactorily succeeded in refuting.
But it is not only my right hon. Friend who has begun to question the value of educational expenditure; I was disturbed to find that the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State who deals with higher education, has also felt inclined to try to refute the theory that economic growth


and educational expenditure are logically linked.
I noticed that in her speech to the Liberal Education Association on 6th July, she said that the days of unquestioned educational expenditure and expansion were numbered. It is all very well for the hon. Lady to say that, but I should like to make two points in reply. First of all, I am not at all sure, despite all the distinguished names the hon. Gentleman read out, that the majority of businessmen would, in fact, agree with her. I am certain that my friend, Professor Vaisey was right earlier in the year, when he said:
Our industrial competitors in Japan or America would not have postponed the raising of the school-leaving age.
In other words, this is a matter of concern to businessmen no less than to educationists. In any case, the language to which I have referred in the speech of the hon. Lady is very different from that which we used to hear in the days when the party opposite was in opposition. The Labour Party election manifesto of 1964 said things like
Our country's 'investment in people' is still tragically inadequate.
At that time expenditure on education was 5 per cent. of the gross national product: it is now 5½ per cent.
I notice that the Secretary of State has recently written:
Education today is a growth industry.
He pledged that even
… in the present financial difficulties that proportion "—
i.e. 5½ per cent.—
will be maintained.
That proportion will only be maintained because the gross national product itself will under the present Government be rising at a very slow rate.
But to return to the hon. Lady the Minister of State. What does she mean when she speaks of maintaining existing standards? It is important to remember that even existing standards include severely oversize classes in many areas despite the fact that the party opposite is pledged to reduce classes to 30 as early as possible. Existing standards also include a very serious backlog in primary and secondary school building improvements, made worse by cuts in the building

programme, and virtually no nursery school provision.
Again, and this is the nub of the matter, it is generally becoming recognised that in order to maintain these standards expenditure on the education service must go on increasing at about 6 per cent. a year in real terms. If the rate of increase is to be cut to 3½ per cent. overall and to 3 per cent. for local authority expenditure, even existing standards, with all their inadequacies, are bound to fall.
I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Woolwich, West asserting that the burden on the rates had become less onerous. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Government's decision to peg back rate support grant to an extra 3 per cent. next year will involve a direct transfer of educational expenditure to the rates. I do not believe that many people have any idea just how severe a measure this will prove to be.
One of the reasons why I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, West particularly asked for this debate was that I wanted an opportunity to emphasise, as I did in January, the point about the rate support grant and the tremendous difficulty in which local authorities will be placed even over the maintenance of existing standards. It should be clearly understood in the country that it is the failure of the Government's economic policy and their own disproportionately severe treatment of the educational service last January that has led to this position.
The Government should admit it, and not pretend, as the Prime Minister did on 18th January, that education is not being cut back. I must also say that having put local authorities into this position, the Government must give them a certain amount of assistance and definite ideas how local authorities can best cope with the situation, which is the Government's responsibility.
As we know, there is some tendency to cut back on the recruitment of part-time teachers. I cannot think that the hon. Lady or the Secretary of State will want to go down to history to the education Ministers who were in office when we started to reverse the trend towards smaller classes.

Mr. Hamling: Would not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the present


Government have increased tremendously the amount of grants towards education to local authorities and that, although it may be that next year there will be a cut as against this year, local authorities will still, at the end of the day, be paying a smaller proportion of their educational expenditure out of the rates than they were when we come to power?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not believe that this will prove to be true of the out-turn for 1969–70. In any case, local authorities do not feel it as the hon. Member said. To give him one example which bears closely on his own special aspect of edua-tional knowledge, the extra burden put on local authorities as a result of the Burnhani technical award was not made up to them. That is just the sort of action that has made local authorities very justly fed up with the Government's handling of this matter.
I come to my second point, which concerns the major school building programme, to which all hon. Members have referred. The Prime Minister said in January that still more important than the highly desirable new reform of raising the school-leaving age at the date previously fixed, was
the maintenance of the fabric of the educational programme",
including school building and other priority programmes. I said at the time that this; reference to the "fabric" was one of the sicker Downing Street jokes of the year. The facts of the situation have turned out rather worse than I suggested at the time. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I remind the House of what I said in January and then seek to justify my remark that things have turned out to be rather worse than I suggested they would in January.
We had, in January, Circular 6/68. It said that the outstanding major school building projects totalling about £70 million which would not have started on the ground by April next must be resubmitted to the Department, and would have to compete with projects already approved for the 1968-69 programme within the limit of £88 million. I said that was a serious matter and I went on to point out that up to now when an important project had found a place in the programme it stayed there. The circular, I said, cancelled all this and must lead to the postponement and cancelling of much needed school building projects.
Then I quoted from the circular to show that it was improvement projects which would be severely affected by the decision that the programme must be re-submitted. I believe that the position has turned out to be worse than I suggested. When I made that speech on 14th February I certainly had the impression that local authorities would be free to start what they could by 1st April and that when we got into the new financial year there would be £88 million to be allocated to local authorities— partly to meet the backlog and partly for new projects which the authorities would want to submit.
Sir William Alexander said recently that the Department told local authorities in January that there would be new work in 1968–69 to the value of £88 million in the new programme and that this would be for projects put up for approval in 1968–69, but it has not happened that way. The aftermath of Circular 6/68 was that the value of projects started before 1st April in excess of last year's authorised total have been deducted from the figure of £88 million. The value of the remainder of the programme is only £56 million, which is the lowest total for many years.
In other words, as I understand the position—and this was not forecast in Circular 6/68—in so far as authorities started projects before 1st April and the total of those projects brought the total for the year above the authorised figure for 1967–68, the excess has been deducted from the £88 million for 1968–69, so that the value of the remainder of the programme and the new projects which have been authorised to authorities for the current year is not £88 million, but only £56 million.
There is very considerable ill feeling among local authorities at the way they have been treated by the Department and there are grave doubts whether the revised programme for 1968–69 will be sufficient to provide roofs over children's heads for the year 1969–70. This is a serious matter.
When I was Minister, I know very well that there was often disappointment over the improvement element in the programme. I have never concealed this. Particularly in 1963 when, as a result of the legitimate pressure which was put on me, I was subsequently able, as the


right hon. Lady may recall, to double the improvement element for the succeeding years. At the lowest, the improvement element was never less than about £12 million for 1964–65. I was able to rather more than double that for the programmes which I announced for the two following years.
Now, however, we not only have virtually no improvement element, but the £56 million, which is all that the right hon. Lady can allocate for 1968–69 for new projects, simply will not be enough, in the opinion of many authorities, to meet the problem of roofs over heads. To give only two or three examples, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman), in an earlier debate this morning, quoted the instance of Leicestershire, about which great concern has been expressed inThe Times this morning. The Chief Education Officer for Buckinghamshire has said:
Unless we can get an increased programme and speed up the rate of building, in two years' time we shall find that children are out of school.
Inner London has had only £1½ million allocated compared with £3½ million last year. I assure the hon. Member for Woolwich, West that when I was Minister London did considerably better than that for 1965–66 and 1966–67. He must know that, at least, when the Conservatives were in power, we tried to give decent notice of the school building programme, and in April, 1964, I allocated the whole of the programme for 1965–66 and nearly all of it for 1966–67. The authorities were very glad to have the long notice, for which they have always asked.

Mr. Hamling: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman would agree the Conservative Governments sometimes did not fulfil the programmes which they announced. For example, the election programme, announced by them in 1959, was certainly not achieved in 1960–61 in school building.

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member is wrong about those two years. Before the 1959 election—I do not want to go back into too much past history—we announced those programmes in one. They were carried out to the letter, and when I became Minister in 1962 something like

£200 million worth of school improvements were going through the pipeline.

Miss Bacon: Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat what he said about London and just over £1 million? I did not quite catch what he said.

Sir E. Boyle: £1½ million is the figure which I have been given, and I shall be very pleased if the right hon. Lady can correct it. I was, however, told that only £1½ million has been allocated for 1968-69 compared with £3½ million last year. Mr. Chataway said that in two or three years there is a danger of part-time schooling or serious overcrowding in some areas.

Miss Bacon: May I clear up this important point? In the original 1968–69 programme, I.L.E.A. was allocated £3½ million of major programme, for the raising of the school-leaving age just over £1 million and for minor works £1,100,000. In the revised programme it has been allocated £1,731,000 for newly-authorised projects. They have started in the last few days, before this year's programme, over £1½ million. Minor works are still running at £1,100,000. They have been allocated over £1 million for e.p.a., which makes a total of £5½ million worth of school building which I.L.E.A. will start this year.

Sir E. Boyle: The right hon. Lady has confirmed my figure for 1968–69, save that I gladly amend it from £1·5 million to £1·7 million in the light of what she has said. But I am talking about the major school programme, a concept with which we have been familiar for a long time. The minor works programme is a separate matter. I was discussing the major school building programme. I am glad that London has a reasonable share of the Plowden sum allocated for priority areas. I wish that Wolverhampton could have done better. We have always said on this side of the House that we should have been more impressed with the money allocated for Plowden if there had not been, at the same time, such a drastic curtailment of the amount allocated for primary improvements as part of the normal major school building programme.
There is no doubt that many authorities are anxious. As the right hon. Lady knows, money allocated for the Plowden


priority areas will not solve Mr. Chataway's problems of overcrowding in other areas. One effect of all this will be that the minor works programme will have to be used to provide roofs over heads, whereas it is exactly the minor works programme which we like to count on to provide a measure of the improvements we need.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West said what he did about comprehensives in connection with the school building programme and referred, also, to what local authorities particularly want. My hon. Friend was fair and realistic when he emphasised that the world is not divided into those who are as a matter of doctrine against all secondary reorganisation, and those who wish to go helter-skelter for reorganisation at whatever cost to the rest of the service.
My hon. Friend was right to point out that educational opinion does not divide neatly into those two categories. There are many people—he is one and I am another—who, if there is a proposal for a soundly based reorganisation scheme, are often thoroughly in favour of it on educational grounds and we are glad if it can be properly provided. But one must see what is suffering as a result. That is my hon. Friend's point. I have always believed that the difficult question of reorganisation—how we can preserve academic standards, keep the confidence of teachers in all kinds of school, and, at the same time, widen opportunity and avoid premature selection—will be solved much better if we can carry local opinion with us. In the same way, one must always be sensitive to those projects which local authorities most want in their programmes.
My hon. Friend was right to emphasise, too, that there is one big difference between capital projects and current Spend-ing: capital projects can be competed for again, but the difficulty about current spending is that it cannot be postponed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) spoke about immigration in relation to primary education. I put to the right hon. Lady two questions about the Government's recent proposals to help areas of special need. First, can she explain the machinery of government and how it will work? Can she assure the House that this is not to

be looked at just as a Home Office matter; but that her own Department will be fully engaged in it and have its proper position? I would much rather see the educational aspect of the programme handled in Curzon Street than in the Home Office.
Second, can the right hon. Lady assure the House that a proper balance will be kept between new projects and cash aid for local authorities? I am sure that she will realise that the great problem of a large sudden increase in the school population is its extra cost. I remind the House of what I have always thought was that very important article on immigrants and the social services in the N.I.E.S.R. Economic Review for August, 1967. Contrary to much mythology, about this matter, the average cost per head of the health and welfare services for immigrants was probably in 1966 about 5 per cent. lower than the national average cost for the population as a whole. But the average cost of education per head was rather higher for the children of immigrant families, which is natural. There is not a real cash problem.
Speaking as one who, I hope, as much as any hon. Member absolutely loathes seeing immigrants made the scapegoat for problems we have not solved, I feel that we must be realistic about the extra cash burden on authorities when there is a sudden unexpected increase in child population. I hope that this will be given priority attention by the Government in operating their new policy.
The second of my final points concerns raising the school-leaving age. We have, unhappily, postponed this for two years. I hope that the right hon. Lady can assure us that planning is going forward and can give us some idea when a new announcement will be made about building programmes. About a quarter of the two-year postponement has already gone, and we must not forget this objective.
Next I should like to say a word about the Newsom Commission's Report. I had much sympathy with the general comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich on this matter, but in any case I feel that it is out of the question, even if one thought that the recommendations were right on other grounds, that we should commit ourselves to expenditure of £12 million a year more public funds


in order to provide a greater social mix at public schools, when there are so many other priorities in the education service, such as the subjects we have been discussing in this debate.
We have been talking throughout most of the debate about the schools. But let me remind the House that in addition to school education and university education there is also higher education, which comes within the sphere of the local authorities, and further education. A considerable expansion of expenditure on further education is inevitable, if only because of the results of the two White Papers that our party produced in 1956 and 1961 and the impetus given by Lord Eccles to the development of this service. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West says that there is no inherent need for expenditure on further and higher education to match expansion in school education I am a little reminded of a remark I once heard by a very able civil servant, who said, "It is extraordinary what pleasure that some intelligent Ministers can sometimes take in contemplating a model which makes it appear that water might one day run uphill".
The point is that we are to have an expansion in sixth forms—and, whatever else is true of comprehensive schools, they are certain to lead to an expansion of sixth forms, including semi-academic sixth forms—that expansion is bound to entail the need for a corresponding expansion in further education and what one might call the diploma level of education. But of course it is true that we must look at financial priorities, and there are some aspects of further education that must be sold ruthlessly at last, with no subsidy. And just as I have always taken a definite view about charges for school meals for those who can afford them, so I think that we must also be prepared over the years to expect a slightly less lavish staff-student ratio in university education.
I apologise for detaining the House for a long time. I believe that many of the economic difficulties were quite unnecessary, given a sounder economic strategy for 1964 onwards, but whatever our present difficulties let us not lose our sense of the importance of the education ser-

vice. It is important in personal terms and to the nation.
I have been lucky enough to have been to some extent identified with this service for more than 12 years, and I hope that I shall always preserve a sense of financial and economic responsibility in connection with it, but I am certain that it is not just a platitude to say that the potential abilities of our young children—I would add, of all races— are the most valuable asset that we possess. It is, rather, a saying whose full implications have to be thought through and, if necessary, fought through in each decade in this country.

7.55 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): In my innocence, I came here this morning prepared to speak about the school building programme. We have now had a debate which has developed into a major education debate, and I cannot think of any single subject within education that has not been mentioned during the last two hours. It is encouraging to find that hon. Members on both sides of the House set such great store by education. We can all echo the final words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle).
The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) spoke at some considerable length about immigration, which I thought might have been better in a debate which took place earlier this morning. I emphasise that we have a responsibility in the Department of Education and Science to ensure that all children living within our shores get the best possible education no matter who they are, or from whence they came.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the numbers of immigrants coming into our schools. There are among those, as the right hon. Gentleman said, some who have been born in this country but most of them are the children of immigrants who came well before the present Government came to office. We would not, as Government policy, expect that a man who was here, and working here, would not have the right to bring to this country his children of school age.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) asked whether


I had the figures of children emigrating and the numbers coming in. I have not. But I saw last week, in connection with the general figures for immigration and emigration, that more people were leaving the country than coming into it. So the gist of what he was saying is right.

Mr. Hamling: I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that immigrant families tend, on the whole, to be larger than emigrant families.

Miss Bacon: Yes, I accept that.
Before I deal with the points raised about the school building programme and the finance of education, perhaps I might deal straight away with one or two of the points that the right hon. Gentleman put to me. He asked for an assurance about the way in which the money set aside for areas of special need would be dealt with. I emphasise that the urban programme is to deal with all areas of special need and not just the immigrant areas, although we know that when we are looking at areas of special need the areas of high immigrant population will figure largely.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the programme this week, because it was a general programme covering the whole of the social services, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the educational part of this will be administered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and that in the Department at the moment we are going ahead with our plans. He will be pleased to know—he mentioned nursery school provision and said that there had been very little in the last few years—that one of our priorities in the areas of special need will be an expansion of nursery education, particularly in these priority areas.
The bulk of the money which will go to education out of the programme will be spent on nursery school provision. Although the details are not yet settled, I hope that we shall have an extra allocation for minor works because the visit which I made recently to areas of high immigration showed that there was a need for more minor works in many of these areas.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a difference between new pro-

jects and cash aid. In fact, it is envisaged that there will be cash aid to these areas. Under Section 11 of the Local Government Act, we are prohibited from giving direct cash aid unless it is to pay for personnel. We shall need an Amendment to Section 11 in order to make it possible for the Government to make specific cash grants other than where they are payments for salaries and wages. It is the Government's intention that that Amendment shall be made.
Incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman asked when an announcement about the raising of the school-leaving age would be made. The announced intention still stands: we are raising the school-leaving age two years later than we had originally thought and we hope that the school building programme will be announced in the autumn. We are going ahead, too, with the discussions and we hope that it will not be too long before we can make an announcement about a single leaving date, which should be helpful.
I come to the subject of the school building programme. Some concern has been caused because recently we announced a revised programme for 1968–69, the previous programme having been announced in 1967. The frequent references to cuts in the building programme point to a misunderstanding of the situation. On 14th February, we debated the reasons for the review of the programme which had previously been provided for 1968–69, but it might help to clear up some misunderstanding if I repeated some of the points which I made then. In January the Prime Minister announced, along with other measures, that it had been decided to postpone the raising of the school-leaving age for two years. But local authorities had already been allocated £36 million a year for three years for building for that purpose and it was to save the £36 million in each of two years that the postponement was made.
The £36 million had been included in the original 1968–69 programme for the purpose of raising the school-leaving age. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that it would have been a difficult task to take that £36 million out of the programme which had already been announced because that money was not an easily identifiable part of each local


authority's school building programme. Local authorities did not take a school, add a classroom and say, "That is from the money for raising the school-leaving age". The money went into the general pool. Having to take out the £36 million which had previously been allocated for raising the school-leaving age inevitably meant that some schools which had been in the original programme were not in the revised programme. But I emphasise that, even after taking out this money, the total revised programme for 1968–69, including special schools and minor works, is £129 million compared with £134 million in 1967–68.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) made great play with those few millions, but included in the 1967–68 allocation there was a special allocation which the Government made available last winter to help areas where there was high unemployment, and that put the 1967–68 programme up by so much.
The only difference in the current programme from that previously announced is the withdrawal of the special allocation of £36 million in building for raising the school-leaving age. This has been partly offset by the addition of £7 million to the programme to help authorities whose plans for secondary reorganisation were linked with the prospect of raising the school-leaving age in 1970, so the amount taken out of the school building programme was not the full £36 million for the raising of the school-leaving age but £36 million minus £7 million set on one side for reorganisation.
Because of the adjustment, authorities were asked to review their proposals for 1968–69, including schools allocated in earlier years but not expected to start before 1st April, 1968. We thought it only right that we should ask local authorities for their revised priorities in the light of the new situation. Although the right hon. Gentleman talks about the backlog in a rather casual way, the method of allocating resources for school building which has grown up over the years has not been very satisfactory, as he knows.
Local authorities are given an allocation for a year but it has not been necessary for them to start the projects in that year. They could be carried forward to

the next year or for two, three and sometimes even four or five years. Local authorities over the years—it was the case in the right hon. Gentleman's time at the Department as well—had built up a backlog of unstarted projects which this year total £70 million which they could start at any one time.
If the Government had to take £30 million, which they had to, out of this year's programme for building, the local authorities could easily have made nonsense of this capital saving merely by dipping into the backlog of building and taking as much out of that as had been saved by postponing the raising of the school-leaving age. The saving from postponement of the higher school-leaving age might have been wiped out by switching to schools in the backlog.
Incidentally, we are having a new procedure for new school building programmes which we have drawn up in consultation with the local authorities and which will mean that in future we do not have this problem of the backlog every year. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the difficulties inherent in the present school building programme system and I am sure that he will welcome a procedure which will establish a meaningful programme for starts for each financial year and so overcome the problems of the backlog which has existed for such a long time.
Local authorities were trying to beat the deadline of 31st March by starting as much out of the backlog as they could. Within 10 days in March, local authorities were trying to start about £25 million worth of these projects, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that something had to be done.

Sir E. Boyle: The right hon. Lady will not deny that Circular 6/68 gave the impression that authorities could start as much of their existing authorised programmes as they liked before 31st March and that then the full £88·5 million would be authorised in the form of new projects for 1968–69. The fact that only £56 million will be made available in the new year for authorised projects, because of the "gold rush" in March, means that local authorities are receiving more severe treatment than we thought would be the case when we debated this subject last February.

Miss Bacon: There was an unprecedented number of starts. In any event, the right hon. Gentleman is looking at the matter in a somewhat artificial way, because those projects which local authorities began whether on 30th March or 2nd April are going forward.
The figures show that local authorities are building more school buildings in the current year than in any previous year in history. In 1963–64, the total school building programme was £87 million. By 1967–68 it had risen to £127 million. Building in progress in 1964 was worth £145 million. Construction going on this year totals £200 million, which is an all time record. Whether or not this building work was started on 30th March or 2nd April, it is in progress, and the amount of building going on in school programmes amounts to £200 million, the greatest amount of school building in progress in any one year. The number of school places being provided has increased. In 1963–64, the number was 230,370. In 1967, it was 424,329.
The value of building in progress in London this year will be £5½ million. One cannot put on one side over £1 million worth of minor works. For this reason it is misleading to refer, as was done in the debate, to building in progress worth £1½ million. Under the minor works programme any project costing less than £25,000 may be undertaken. Some of this work was started in the last few days of March and some after 1st April. It is important to note the total amount of work in progress, and not to use artificial arguments relating to the dates of 31st March and 1st April.
Essex has a school building programme this year of over £2 million, comprising 15 primary and seven secondary projects. The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) concentrated on the problems of Essex, but we must consider local authorities as a whole. I appreciate that there are problems in Essex, but I suggest that that area has had its fair share of the school building programme for this year. We have not been able to apply a, flat rate percentage adjustment to every programme. We have authorised projects in the revised 1968–69 programme according to the readiness of a local authority to start, and the question of urgency and priority has been taken into account on the revised lists.
We have to take a local authority as a whole. I am not saying that there are no difficulties in Essex, but it has had its fair share.

Mr. Ridsdale: As the right hon. Lady realises that we have special problems in Essex, especially the problem of an expanding population, will she see a deputation from Essex to discuss the problem with her?

Miss Bacon: It is very difficult about these deputations. There are 162 local authorities in England, all of whom can tell me that they have some special problem. If I see a few of them, I have to see them all, and that would take up a lot of my time. I want to emphasise that the 1968–69 programme is not the end of the school building programme. We are now receiving requests for the 1969–70 programme, which will be announced in a few months' time. We will take into account the special difficulties of all areas.
I was rather surprised at the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West raising the question of Waltham Forest. I thought that it had been rather well treated. It got quite a bit of the £7 million which we allocated to help local authorities in special difficulties with secondary reorganisation. Waltham Forest had £335,000 of that money. If we look at it throughout the country, it was probably more than its share, but I was very pleased to be able to allocate this to help Waltham Forest in its secondary reorganisation, because I know that it would have been in difficulties without it. In addition, it had £169,000 out of the £16 million for the educational priority areas.
Although hon. Members have said that there are very few improvements in this year's programme, for the first time a Government have recognised that there are special areas where replacement of schools ought to take place. In spite of severe financial difficulties this year we retained in the programme that £16 million, and I am very pleased that we were able to do so.

Mr. Silvester: I would like to say that I am really just clearing the pitch for July. We were very grateful for the money given for secondary schools. There are schools which did not receive money, and one is in a terrible condition.

Miss Bacon: I am not denying that we have some terrible schools, many of them built in the 19th century. I would be very pleased to get rid of some.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) raised the question of the overspill from Birmingham. I recognise the problem here and will try to do what I can to help. He pin-pointed our difficulty with the school building programme— that whatever Government have been in power they have had to give priority to areas of new population for schools rather than the replacing of old schools. In my constituency, the whole area might be considered an educational priority area, but it has been a bit difficult, because the local authority has had to give priority to building new schools in the new areas of population. This means that some of the old schools have been left, and it was because of this that the Government allocated £16 million for the educational priority areas.
It has been said that now that we have asked local authorities to keep within a certain percentage of increase for the next year, they might have special difficulties. The Conservative Government, some years ago, substituted the general grant for the percentage grant which has meant that we have not been able to deal with education separately in local authorities. That presents difficulties. For instance, we cannot tell local authorities to cut down on expenditure on roads without fearing that some of them might cut down on education. I will welcome the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government which, perhaps, will lead to a different way of financing local authority expenditure, particularly on education.
Every local authority should regard the cutting down of teachers as the last thing which they should do. We have been receiving in the Department the bids of local authorities for the teacher quotas for next year. I am pleased to say that a great many of the local authorities are asking for an increased teacher quota, which shows that some of the fears expressed about unemployment among teachers are unfounded.
Government expenditure on education in 1963–64 was £1,200 million. Today, it is £2,000 million, which is much more proportionately than the increase in the child population. It has been said from

the benches opposite that the increased expenditure is necessary because there are more children coming into the schools. Of course there are. The forecast figures for the next two years are over £2,150 million in the current year and over £2,250 million in 1969–70, which shows that this Government are giving high priority to education.
Much has been made of the priorities within the education service. This is a very difficult matter. But my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said —and I agree with him—that he wants to give priority to primary schools where-ever he can. Over the next few months there might be a readjustment as between primary schools and secondary schools and higher education. I cannot say more about that now.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Handsworth would not expect me to make any pronouncement about the Newsome Report. I should like to say a great deal about it; I could keep the House another half-hour on it. We are studying it and we are watching the reactions. The Government are not ready to make a pronouncement on it.
I realise that we have been talking about money and buildings, and so on. But education is not primarily buildings and money, though we need those in order to provide good education. It is the children who matter. We are determined to ensure that high priority is given to the children in our schools in the way that the right hon. Member for Handsworth described in the latter part of his speech.

Orders of the Day — MOTORISTS (LICENCE EVASION)

8.24 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have been trying to resolve the subject which I propose to raise for nearly four years. I find that the various Ministries are very adept at "passing the buck".
The position on the question of road fund licences is this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for putting on the tax, and he delegates to the Ministry of Transport responsibility for ensuring that it is collected. That Ministry passes it on to local authorities which act as collecting authorities. The


police locally are supposed to report cases of unlicensed vehicles.
During the four or five years in which I have been raising this subject each Ministry has passed the matter on from one to the other. Five years ago, because I could not get anywhere with the Chancellor, the Home Office, or the Ministry of Transport, I tried with the Greater London Council. Debates take place in the House about allocations of money for essential purposes, yet when I give evidence to the Ministry that a minimum of about £3½ million of tax evasion is taking place no action follows. It is true that reported cases are investigated. After nine months and five or six reportings, the vehicles are still being investigated.
I emphasise that I am not getting at the law-abiding motorist. I am all for helping him. If every motorist paid the tax, which even at the increased rate of £25 is only Is. 6d. a day, 1 estimate that an extra £3½ million a year would come in and there would have been no need to increase the tax. I am, therefore, trying to help the law-abiding road user.
Nor am I getting at the poor, those who run old "jalopies". The offence of which I complain affects all types of road users and road vehicles. It is not confined to what I call the poorer sections of the population or private motorists. The offence is now being committed by businesses, by contractors, by wealthy people and, believe it or not, even by the police. When the police are asked to take action, they say that the offence is now so prevalent that when they report a case and no action is taken for many months they give up reporting.
The police have told me this. The G.L.C. and the various Departments confirm it. I have a letter from the G.L.C, dated 23rd July, saying that I have notified the council in 88 letters, of 4,200 vehicles which have been seen by me on London roads unlicensed. I emphasise that this is not the case of the man who overlooks or forgets for a week or two, or accidentally knocks it off his vehicle; this is the man who deliberately, month after month, and, indeed, year after year, refuses to pay this licence fee.
I have reported these vehicles. I have given names, addresses and telephone numbers in some instances of the owners of contractors' vehicles and where the

vehicles can be seen parked. I can take the Minister to roads, which I can name, in and around the London area, where he will see different vehicles—a new sports car, sand and gravel lorries, five-ton trucks—the drivers of which are turning over £200 to £300 per week tax tree. Yet, when tackled, they say that they refuse to pay, and they will not pay-Why is it that no action has been taken concerning vehicles parked in Durham Road, N.7, details of which I have supplied to the G.L.C. dozens of times over the last three years? To be fair, the police and I have reported them. But what happens? Still no licence is taken out. When one inquires why no action has been taken, the G.L.C. says, "There is so much of this going on that by the time our inspectors get round a period of perhaps nine or even 12 months has elapsed."
There are aspects other than actual tax evasion. First, there are a number of schools of motoring taking learners out on the road without road fund licences on their cars. I have another letter here from the G.L.C. I reported 25 cars belonging to a school of motoring which have never been licensed. After two or three months I got a letter from the G.L.C. saying that it was true. On 23rd July, the G.L.C. wrote to me:
Since writing to you on 28th May, a further 32 reports in respect of offences committed by Regal School of Motoring Ltd."—
it has one office in North London and another in East London—
have been passed to the council's solicitor for the institution of legal proceedings.
At least, in this instance, some progress is being made in that a school of motoring is now to be prosecuted.
But there are other aspects. Two matters arise concerning the reason why this dodging is done. I have mentioned sand and gravel contractors' lorries. But there are many people in private business who do not like paying Income Tax. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you and I do not like paying it, but we know it is the law and we pay it. If we are a bit over in payments we are soon tackled.
I have reported to the police, to the Chancellor, to the Ministry of Transport and to the Home Office three


vehicles owned by a fruit and greengrocery firm which are to be found parked every day in Wood Green High Road on a yellow band, which is illegal, and halfway on the pavement, which is also illegal. I have spoken to the police, and seen them speaking to the drivers concerned, but for 12 months these vehicles have been at the same place. I asked one driver, "How is it that you get away with this?", and he said, "If you give the police some fruit and vegetables they do not touch you". I am not saying whether that is the truth, but I can prove that I have reported three police officers for driving without licences. They admitted that they did not have licences, and said that they had no intention of getting them.
The people about whom I am talking do not take out vehicle Excise licences because they know that when they become due for renewal they would have to produce insurance certificates, and if they took out the necessary insurance they may be traceable for tax purposes. Many of these people do not tax their vehicles because they know that they could not get a certificate of roadworthiness for them. In this way they save themselves 25s., or whatever it costs, to have the vehicle tested. The danger of these people not being insured is that that if they injure someone on the road that person is not able to claim damages from an insurance company.
I have been trying to raise this matter in the House for some considerable time now, and here I want to make a complaint. I have no complaint to make against you, Mr. Speaker, or against the Table Office. Both you and the Table Office have been very kind, understanding, and helpful. According to the Library, I have asked 65 Questions. According to the Table Office I have asked 70. Let us split the different and say the figure is 67.
On 23rd July, I put down five Questions to the Home Secretary. I did so after having given details of the names of the people involved, the numbers of the cars involved, and the roads on which the offences occurred, to the police, to the Home Office, to the Ministry of Transport, and to the G.L.C., and still having got nowhere. I asked for an investigation, but the Home Secretary

gave me the "brush off" by saying that he was asking the police to investigate. For the last five years I have been asking the police to investigate.
From the evidence available to him the Minister knows that 300,000 cases are reported in a year. I am not suggesting that all those vehicles are unlicensed, but let us assume that half of them are not. This means a loss of revenue of 150,000 multiplied by £25 for the Vehicle Excise duty licence, plus 25s. for each car for a roadworthiness certificate. It may be that many of these cars are not insured, which means that the insurance companies are not getting money on which they would have to pay tax. Further, because they are not receiving this income, they have to increase the premiums paid by those who do insure their cars.
I admit that the police have a tremendous job to do, but outside Caledonian Road police station, and outside many others, too, one can see unlicensed cars parked for months on end. Things have got so bad that the police have given up trying to take action because they find that it is virtually impossible to make progress. But it is not, because I explained to the Ministry a simple remedy, to which I got what I regard as a stupid reply, on 30th April.
I pointed out that it was rather unfair for a person to have a car or van which had had no licence for three or four years and to take that vehicle to a parking meter and park it there, thus preventing other car owners who had paid their licence fees from using that meter. Strangely enough, although I pay my tax, when I recently tried to park in a yellow band area to see what happened a policeman came up very soon and asked me to move on—quite rightly. I asked him to tell me why he was asking me to move when a van had been standing there— with three postal order counterfoils marked in respect of Vernon's and Littlewood's Football Pools in the windscreen—for the last three months, to my knowledge, without anybody having had to move it.
It seems that when a person who has paid his correct tax and cannot get to a parking meter parks in a yellow band area a traffic warden or a policeman—or both—comes long within a quarter of an


hour and sticks a £2 fine ticket on his vehicle.
I could suggest a simple scheme which would help the G.L.C., the Ministry of Transport and the Home Office to counteract this tax dodging. Under this scheme the police would stick a notice on to any vehicle not displaying a current road fund licence, to the effect that it had been noted that the vehicle— number so-and-so—was not displaying a current road fund licence and that the driver was thereby notified that he was committing a technical offence and was required to produce his licence at a police station within a certain period— perhaps 48 hours—failing which he would be liable to an automatic fine, unless he wished to contest the case in the courts. There is nothing wrong in that.
If the owner had genuinely forgotten to take out a current licence he would need only to go to the post office to get one, which he could easily produce at a police station within 48 hours. The dodger might have been able to get away with it for three or four years, but under the present arrangement he gets away with itad infinitum.
There is a dodge, which I shall not reveal, under which a person need never pay for a licence or for a certificate of roadworthiness, and he will never be traceable. I merely ask the Minister to consider something that the police say is becoming more prevalent, namely, refusing to register vehicles. A police superintendent told me that he saw a hit-and-run car knock down an old lady on a pedestrian crossing. He took the number of the car and helped the old lady. Fortunately, she was not too badly injured. He thought he would be able to trace the number, but after 10 months of investigation he had to give up, because there was no record of the vehicle. This is a shocking situation.
We now have the Ministry imposing on motorists restrictions that just cannot be enforced. There are about 2,000 regulations which those whom I call "guilty" do not observe. The man who genuinely forgets to renew for a few months—he is caught, and so is the man who breaks the speed limit, but how often does the Ministry see to the observance of the regulations in respect of the testing of brakes, tyres, belts, lamps and all the rest?

The police tell me that they never check up unless there is an accident, when they might check whether the vehicle is taxed and insured, and the like.
I do not want to be "brushed off" on this subject again, because I just will not give up. It is a crying shame that we should have heavy lorries belonging to big firms and private cars whose drivers are consistently flouting the law and the the G.L.C. and the police just not able to see that the regulations are enforced. I have suggested a simple remedy. Until the Minister does something about this matter I shall keep on raising it until I see some improvement in the position.

8.47 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I do not think that anyone could do other than pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) for his persistence in pursuing this matter. I shall not attempt to deny that there is some evasion of Excise duty, but it is fair to say that there is some evasion of any law. Nevertheless, I think that my hon. Friend clearly exaggerates the extent to which the Excise duty is evaded. It is true that there are black spots and that certain areas of London come into that category, and my hon. Friend's constituency is clearly that type of area. It would be wrong, however, to assume that the extent of evasion over the country as a whole could be gauged by reference to the proportion of apparent unlicensed use in these areas.
My hon. Friend referred to particular places in London. In big cities such as London, where there is a lot of back-street parking and a tremendous turnover of population month by month, there are tremendous difficulties in identifying and prosecuting the individual responsible for the unlicensed keeping of a motor vehicle, especially if the current ownership of the vehicle has not been reported to the taxation authority.
The situation in London is further complicated by the fact that the Metropolitan Police have found it impossible, because of manpower difficulties, to do more than report apparent offences to the G.L.C, leaving that body to pursue all the subsequent inquiries. The adoption of that procedure by the police was beneficial in the one respect that far more


cars could be reported, but this created the need for the G.L.C. to create and develop an effective investigation organisation for itself. This gave rise to some immediate difficulties, but it is fair to say that the G.L.C. now has the situation under a much better control than was formerly the case.
My hon. Friend tended to infer, if not to say directly, that no action is taken in a multitude of cases. It is only right that I should look at the country as a whole rather than simply at London. In 1966, with a total vehicle population of 13,191,149, there were 282,092 Excise offences. This is an incidence of one in 47. In 1967, with an increased vehicle population of 14,012,398, there was an increase to 348,053 excise offences, an incidence of one in 40. This clearly indicates the level of recording which compares quite favourably with the level of unlicensed use of just under 2 per cent. These were detected in spot checks carried out from time to time in different parts of the country. This suggests that the majority of offenders are caught.
Some spot checks of vehicles were carried out between 12th and 18th April this year by Birmingham County Borough Council, Bedfordshire County Council and Northamptonshire County Council. In Birmingham, 1,513 vehicles were checked, 44 were apparently not currently licensed and 17 were known to be unlicensed. This represents 1·12 per cent. In Bedfordshire, 2,606 vehicles were checked, 43 apparently were not currently licensed and 12 were known to be unlicensed. In five cases inquiries are still continuing. Here were 17 evasions or 0·65 per cent.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my hon. Friend accept an offer from me to come with me after this debate to three or four roads within a stone's throw of this place, where I will show him, and give him the numbers of vehicles which have been there for 12 months to my knowledge? They have been reported several time and they are unlicensed. There is a spot check for him. Come with me today.

Mr. Brown: That is a kind offer to make, but I do not intend to get embroiled in spot checking, which is the responsibility of the police.
In Northamptonshire, 1,543 vehicles were checked, 40 were apparently not currently licensed, 20 were known to be unlicensed, there are five inquiries continuing and the maximum extent of evasion was 1·62 per cent.
This series of checks indicates that the general extent of evasion is much less than is generally supposed or as suggested by my hon. Friend. Many cases of apparent unlicensed use are cases where a licence has in fact been taken out and duty paid but it is not being displayed for one reason or another. Reference was made by my hon. Friend to the time it takes to get a case into court. I do not want to enter into discussion about particular vehicles to which he has referred, but the House might find it useful if I try to explain the steps which have to be taken before a case can be brought into court. The mere noting of an apparently unlicensed vehicle is only the beginning of the matter. Much investigation is necessary, particularly in the case of unaccompanied parked vehicles which feature prominently in the reports.
As I have said, much investigation is necessary to establish that an offence has been committed. Between one-quarter and one-fifth of apparent offenders have properly taken out licences, but are not displaying them. As we all know, it is a requirement of the law that they should be displayed.
When it is shown that duty has not been paid, the identity of the person responsible for the offence, who may not be the registered owner, has to be established. The police usually conduct or assist with such inquiries, but notably in London and in one or two other towns they are unable to do so because of lack of manpower. The follow-up inquiries have to be conducted by the councils.
When offenders have been identified by those inquiries, they are dealt with in a number of ways according to the circumstances of the case. One is to give a caution for mere oversight. I am certain that my hon. Friend would agree that a man who inadvertently forgets that his licence has expired should not be caned too hard.
There is the mitigated penalty of a nominal amount which is imposed by


a council under its powers as commissioners of Customs and Excise for the rather more culpable offender, or prosecution in a magistrates' court for the more serious and blatant type of offences. Some of the cases referred to by my hon. Friend are blatant oases, and clearly, I suggest, in the case of many of those to which he has referred, the preliminary steps to which I am now referring, leading up to prosecution, will have been taken.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Three years?

Mr. Brown: I cannot enter into individual cases. That is something that my hon. Friend will have to pursue.

Mr. Lewis: With whom?

Mr. Brown: In all these cases there is no loss of revenue, because, apart from the fines which are ordered to be paid, arrears of duty have also to be made good.
It might be asked what more can be done. The general level of reporting throughout the country is already reasonably high, but it is essentially a question of manpower. We are reasonably satisfied that councils and the police are probably deploying all the personnel they can on this task.
As with any enforcement activity, there comes a time when the cost of increased enforcement staff ceases to be an economic proposition. I do not think that it would please my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer if we reached the situation that he was proposing taxes, and local authorities and other bodies were proposing enforcement organisations which would more than gobble up the taxes proposed by my right hon. Friend.
Where it helps to increase the reporting rate, councils are encouraged to relieve the police of as much of the investigation and administrative side of the work as possible. The Ministry is in touch with the Home Office with a view to streamlining reporting procedures in a way which will enable the person detecting an offence to report direct to the council concerned without the need for immediate office procedure.
My hon. Friend has referred to the use of traffic wardens. They can undoubtedly be allowed to give more assistance than they do, and there is pro-

vision in the Transport Bill, which is now before Parliament, whereby the Home Secretary will be able to add vehicle Excise licence spotting and subsequent investigation work in connection therewith to the list of functions which wardens may officially perform. I hope that this wider power that the Transport Bill will give when it becomes law in November will be widely used by local authorities.
Now, a word about penalties. Clearly, the most effective way of reducing evasion is to make it more distinctly unprofitable for the detected evader. To this end, the Finance Act, 1967 not only raised the Excise penalty from £20—or three times the annual duty, whichever be the greater—for each offence to £50 —or five times the annual duty, whichever be the greater—but it placed the courts under an obligation to order an offender to pay all the back duty. This a council can claim automatically.
The onus of establishing that no duty has, in fact, been incurred, either by reason of non-use or disposal of the vehicle since the last licence was taken out, is now put on the offender himself. A private motorist who evades for a year is thus currently faced with an order for payment of between £17 10s. and £25 back duty, the actual amount depending on how many months were pre-Budget and how many were post-Budget, and a penalty of anything up to £125, that is, five times the annual duty at the date of the offence. For the operator of a goods vehicle of 4 tons unladen weight, there is the current back duty of £135 and a maximum penalty on top of £675.
I suggest that penalties of that type are a clear deterrent. If we find that the deterrents are not working well enough, I should hope that in future Budgets or other Measures we would think clearly about putting on heavier penalties still.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is not a question of the level of penalty. These people are not being prosecuted because—I agree—there is so much to be done. If they are not being prosecuted, the size of the penalty does not matter. My suggestion is that we should have an automatic fine or production of the licence. If I have an accident, or I am pulled up by the police and I am called upon to show my certificate of insurance,


I have to show it or produce it within 48 hours. Why not do the same here? There is the evidence for prosecution.

Mr. Brown: I know that my hon. Friend has pursued his proposal for automatic fines at great length, just as I have pursued at great length in correspondence with him the reasons why it is not practical. No one likes to concede that a good idea he has is not practical, but we have been very fair in pointing out the flaws in what, on the face of it, is an attractive scheme.
The most important flaws, which my hon. Friend knows well enough, are these. It would impose the same fine whether the offence was of unlicensed keeping, unlicensed use or only the less serious offence of failure to display the licence.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Minister ought not to say that. It need do nothing of the kind.

Mr. Brown: Will my hon. Friend let me get on with my explanation?
It would be impossible to set a fair figure for the suggested automatic fine. One appropriate to the offence of not displaying would not be appropriate if the offence was of unlicensed keeping or unlicensed use. Further, a figure appropriate for the unlicensed use of a small motorcycle with a duty of £2 10s. would be nonsense in relation to the unlicensed use of a heavy lorry with an annual duty of £400 or more. Those are two simple reasons, straight off, for rejecting the idea of the automatic fine.
On the question of display, the key to enforcement is the display of the licence disc from which it is easy to see whether the vehicle is licensed. But about one-fifth of motorists do not bother to exhibit the licences that they have obtained. This wastes a tremendous amount of the enforcement authorities' time. Although the failure to display a licence is an offence in itself, the courts tend to regard it as a technical offence. But there is a provision in the Transport Bill to extend the range of offences to which fixed penalty treatment may be applied, and failure to display an Excise licence will be brought within this extended range. This could go a long way not only to securing better observation

of the vehicle licensing law, but to saving the great deal of wasted enforcement effort.
My hon. Friend has made great play of the question of automatic fines. I want to be fair and objective, but it is quite impractical because of the impos-siblity of determining the proper level of the automatic fine. The persistent offender would not heed notices stuck on his windscreen, and so the relatively blameless man would be the one who was caught by this type of thing.
My hon. Friend also made much of the question of changes of ownership not being recorded, and he criticised the way in which offenders can escape by this practice. This is, admittedly, something of a difficulty. It is one of the reasons why investigations often take such a long time while the enforcing officer must follow the trail through successive owners. We are studying this problem. My hon. Friend referred to an issue that he did not want to publicise, and this is something to which I do not want to give any publicity either, except to say that we are actively pursuing this.
Where the vehicle is of testable age the test certificate must be produced when the licence is bought, but my hon. Friend argued that people who did not apply for the vehicle licence did not need to trouble to get a test certificate. This means that they get away scot free, because there is no means of checking on them. It is less than fair to the police when my hon. Friend states that they have given up the ghost and do not take any notice whether motorists have a test certificate, Excise licence or anything else. If a constable in a police force here in the Metropolis has told my hon. Friend that, I am not prepared to accept that police forces up and down the country close their eyes to wrong-doing as he suggests. As with insurance or any of the other requirements of the law, the police can challenge a motorist at any time to produce his test certificate.
For my hon. Friend to suggest that the police make a check only when an accident happens is completely unfair to every police force in the country, because a moving traffic offence gives police cause to make such checks, and I have every reason to believe that police forces up and down the country make them regularly.

Orders of the Day — OLD HOUSES (CONVERSION)

9.10 a.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The White Paper "Old Houses into New Homes" will vitally affect millions of families—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please speak up. The Parliamentary reporters want to hear.

Mr. Allaun: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
It will affect them in the most intimate way—in their homes. If the best features of it are implemented, as I hope they will be, vital steps will be taken towards ending the present intolerable housing situation where 10 million men, women and children go to bed tonight—and some of us have not been to bed tonight, Mr. Speaker—in a house without a bath, hot water or inside lavatory—and not before time.
There is the worker who coming home from a dirty job and wanting to wash his feet has to ask his wife to put the kettle on and bring the enamel bowl out of the cupboard. There is the mother with several young children who needs the strength of an athlete to fill and empty the sl;pper bath with pans of water. There is the toddler or his grandmother who in rain or cold has to go outside to the lavatory at the bottom of the yard or even down the street to the communal W.C. All this in the so-called affluent society, in 1968, in the age of automation, atomic energy and space travel.
One in four of all dwellings in Britain —4·1 million houses—lack an indoor lavatory, a fixed bath or a hot and cold water system. Of these, 1·8 million are slum houses beyond redemption. This is a vast mass of heartbreak housing. The sooner the slum houses are pulled down and replaced the better. But many of the others at the present rate of building will still be occupied 20 years hence. Many of them are structurally sound. Their occupiers would be overjoyed if they could have a bathroom installed.
I have recently been visiting old houses which have become what the occupiers sometimes describe as "little palaces". They will proudly show visitors bathrooms of a splendour which one would expect to find in an American film star's home in Beverley Hills rather than in

the back streets of an industrial town. They would greatly prefer their present houses with these amenities to being moved to overspill housing perhaps 10 miles away. This is not easy, as I need not point out, for an engine driver who has to be at his depot at perhaps three o'clock in the morning.
Moreover, the difference in cost is startling between, say, £4,000 for a new council flat and £400 for a new bathroom. Indeed, the average cost of converting boxrooms and bedrooms in Salford—the same applies to other places—is £230, including a bath, washbasin, thermo-static electric heater, W.C. and all the fittings. For some years generous grants have been available for installing baths, hot water, inside lavatories, wash basins and food stores. The owner can obtain a grant of half the cost from the Government and raise his rents by 12½ per cent. to cover the other half of the cost. Many owner-occupiers and councils have sensibly taken advantage of this grant, but, with a few honourable exceptions, private landlords have not.
Last year out of 113,000 houses improved in this way only 26,000 were privately rented homes. I calculate that last year one in 27 owner-occupiers installed bathrooms in their homes whereas only one in 160 private landlords' houses were thus improved. Many tenants say they had a struggle to get their landlords to do the repairs, never mind the improvements. Millions of tenants are not yet aware of their opportunities. Even though certain powers have been given to local authorities to compel landlords to apply for the grants and to improve their houses, few councils have used them. I propose to give some figures. The whole project is hanging fire. Families living in the four million bathless homes are still waiting. That is why I welcome the publication of the White Paper "Old Houses into New Homes" as a prelude to speeding up the process.
May I mention some of the excellent proposals, then deal with the bad features and finally put forward some additional ideas. The White Paper recognises that instead of treating houses one at a time, whole streets or areas will be dealt with in one go. That has been found the best way in Leeds, Salford, Birmingham, Norwich and other cities. It will no longer be required that a house must have more


than 15 years of life before grants are made. Who would argue that families must live for 15 years in bathless houses?
The Government propose to make grants to councils to acquire houses for conversion and improvement such as are at present enjoyed—rightly so—by housing associations. Something is to be done at last not only to improve the inside of the houses but also to improve their environment. Grants of up to £100 a house will be made available for such amenities as children's play spaces and car parking spaces and for the planting of trees. Why should there not be trees in Coronation Street? There will be sweeping increases in the maximum grants made available, standard grants rising from £155 to £200, discretionary grants from £400 to £1,000 and conversion grants from £500 to £1,200 per flat.
For the "little landlord" who lacks the resources to provide even his half of the cost, loans will be granted by local authorities on an "interest-only" basis and recovered much later, mainly on the ultimate sale of the houses. Councils will have power to impose a time limit within which any work approved for grant must be done.
So much for the good proposals. Now for the bad. The most serious of these proposals, unless jettisoned, will mean that 400,000 tenants and their families will be faced with heavy rent increases. Generous grants are already available. Landlords receive half the cost for nothing. They receive rent increases of 12½ per cent. on their half of the cost and they benefit from a considerable rise in the value of their property. The White Paper would decontrol those houses which have controlled rents, provided that they contain a bathroom and are in a good state of repair. These rent rises would affect not only a house in which a bathroom was installed under the new proposals; they would also apply to houses already in that condition even if the tenant himself had been responsible for and had paid for the improvement—which is even more unfair.
Landlords would be permitted to take their cases through the rent-fixing machinery set up under the new Rent Act, 1965. Unfortunately it is now fixing rents at considerably above the former controlled rents. Certainly in London, Birmingham,

Southampton and some other areas it is fixing rents at roughly three times the previous controlled rent. That is another subject on which more will have to be said in the Chamber on another occasion. Admittedly, the White Paper suggests that these increases would be phased although it does not say over how long a period. Nevertheless, they would become effective over a period.
Tenants in one working class area of London, living in terraced houses with no baths, have recently had their rents fixed at £4 7s. 6d. a week plus rates. How much higher still would the rents have been if baths had been included? Some of the occupants are taking home less than £11 a week to cover their family's total expenditure. In other words, more than half their wages goes on housing, even without heating, lighting and so forth. In my view, the Rent Act, 1965, is not being fairly applied.
Hiding behind the skirts of small, poor landlords—and there are many of them —are the big, rich ones. When the White Paper was published, theFinancial Times carried a report the following day, on 25th April, under the heading:
Larger property owners pleased with rent plan",
It was in the following terms:
London City (and Westcliff Properties) itself believes that the Government's new step would be worth over £100,000 to it over a number of years.
Little wonder that the National Federation of Property Owners, theFinancial Times, and many hon. Members opposite are delighted, for this section of the White Paper would mean granting what they have been pressing for ever since the 1965 Act came into operation.
Most of these controlled houses were built in the last century and have been paid for over and over again in rent. Their previous owners put nothing aside for depreciation—again, with honourable exceptions. In some areas, property companies have been buying rows of controlled houses for a song. In both cases there is little justification for a rent increase.
This section of the White Paper will defeat the main purpose of converting old houses into new homes, which is to accelerate the introduction of baths, hot water and indoor lavatories. The present


miserable rate of progress will grind to a halt. In my experience, most tenants are willing to pay 6s. or 8s. a week extra on their rent to cover the landlord's share of the cost of installing a bathroom under the present arrangements, but they would certainly refuse the amenities if they knew that they would have their rents doubled or trebled in consequence.
It is true that the local authorities, under the White Paper, are to be given compulsory powers, but the tenants' resistance to compulsion in such circumstances would be so strong that I see few councils going ahead with them, and I urge my hon. Friend to realise the danger facing him. I know that his objectives are the same as mine.
At a time when there is pressure to keep down rents and other items of the cost of living, I cannot believe that the Government will proceed with this part of the proposed legislation. I am glad that many of my hon. Friends, whilst welcoming the White Paper in other respects, are showing their firm opposition to this particular part of it.
I am informed from several sources that a sharp fall is taking place in the number of improvements now being made. This is because property owners who had intended to make them are holding back until the White Paper's compensation terms are implemented in legislation. I urge my hon. Friend to make it clear again that the details of the White Paper have been published for discussion only—this needs stressing —and will not necessarily appear in the forthcoming legislation.
Now I come to an important objection of another kind, raised by those practical experts, the members of the Association of Public Health Inspectors. In the White Paper, the Government propose to repeal the existing powers of local authorities to improve an area by compulsory means. In their place, powers of compulsory purchase will be granted to councils where the owners refuse to improve their properties. Admittedly the present machinery of compelling owners to do this work is extremely cumbersome and time wasting. Mr. F. H. Robinson, Chief Public Health Inspector for Sal-ford, tells me that to improve one house sometimes involves filling up 20 forms and making 12 visits to the house.
The health inspectors nationally wish to streamline the procedure, but they do not wish to abolish it. Their association has put forward a simplified scheme. Many local authorities—the number has increased since the municipal elections—would refuse to make compulsory purchases of houses to improve them and it is essential, therefore, that both methods, compulsory purchase and the present method of compulsion without purchase should be provided as alternatives.
Many local authorities are lagging in this matter. In reply to a recent Question, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary provided me with a list of the number of improvements carried out, with grant, in every borough council area. There have been some excellent performances; for example, Sheffield with 1,247 dwellings improved last year, Birmingham with 1,341 and Leicester with 620. On the other hand, there have been some shockingly low figures in the roll of shame—if I lived in one of these areas I would want to know why—such as only 129 dwellings in Liverpool with a bath, hot water and W.C. installed last year, 199 in Manchester, 41 in Wolverhampton, 39 in Cardiff, 32 in Brighton, 23 in Southampton, six in the City of Westminster, four in Tower Hamlets and four in Kensington and Chelsea. Councils should be asked to submit to the Minister not only the number of houses suitable for improvement in their areas but also their plans for carrying out the improvements within a given time— say, five years in most cases—with their annual programmes for that period.
The White Paper proposes that powers should be made available to remedy a defect in a house when it becomes "serious". Some health inspectors suggest that there should be compulsory maintenance of property to ensure that property does not reach a serious state. This would help to preserve property, it is pointed out.
It is obviously desirable that there should be access to the W.C. from inside the house, but this is not always practicable and should be required as a condition only in cases where it is practicable, or other valuable amenities might be prevented from being installed.
Property owners should receive loans not at the market rate of interest but at


4 per cent. by means of a Government subsidy similar to that available for council house building. This would be one way of encouraging landlords, without taking their houses out of control.
There should be an imaginative publicity campaign to bring to the attention of vast numbers of tenants, landlords and owner-occupiers the grant possibilities that exist. Many of them are unaware of these facilities. I would like to see the Ministry taking advertising time on television to show a mother struggling to wash her children in the sink or in the tin bath on the kitchen floor while, next door in an otherwise similar house, another mother is happily bathing her children in the newly installed bathroom.
I would also welcome the covering by all councils of those streets and areas most suitable for improvement with leaflets explaining the grants available. I suggest that the improvement grants be extended to cover the introduction of electric wiring in homes lacking this, and unfortunately there are many such homes. I have recently ascertained from the leading firm of bath manufacturers, Allied Ironfounders, that it has the capacity to meet a big increase in demand, so there is no difficulty on the score. If it is the view that there is a shortage of skilled labour to instal bathrooms and lavatories, I would urge the Minister to visit the Building Centre in London, where he will see a completely fabricated plastic bathroom, which can be installed in a few hours.
Slum clearance proposals are to be speeded up, but what about new houses to meet general need, that is to say the majority of cases? It would be tragic if the improvement of old houses was made a substitute for building new ones. Both measures are vital. The peoples' housing need is so great that we require 500,000 new houses, plus 200,000 improved houses a year. It would be inexcusable to set one against the other.
The Government proposes a big increase in compensation to owners. There will be supplementary payments for owner-occupied houses subjected to slum clearance. If the houses have been well maintained tenanted—unfit houses will attract payments of four times the rateable value.
I agree that there have been some hard cases in the past where slum clearance compensation for owner-occupiers has been inadequate. If better compensation is paid, it will become an unduly heavy burden on local authorities. Already many councils have to pay scores of thousands of pounds an acre when they clear a slum to build new houses. It is precisely those cities with the greatest need which will have those financial difficulties increased. Therefore, there should be increased assistance from the national Exchequer. Much as I welcome the fact—although it is not enough—that councils receive housing loans from the Government at 4 per cent. instead of anything up to the 7 per cent. they would have to pay on the open market—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not think me discourteous, but I have appealed through the night, from time to time, for reasonably brief speeches. This is only the seventh of 28 debates on the Order Paper.

Mr. Allaun: In response to your request, Mr. Speaker, I will finish in one minute. I feel that extra help will be required if cities with large slums are expected to pay higher compensation when clearance takes place. This drive to improve old houses must go ahead— and with all the determination that was employed in wartime to rush up great ordnance factories.
If I am asked where the money is to come from, I would say out of the £2,271 million which we are spending annually on the arms programme. We are spending £205 million a year on B.A.O.R., plus another £15 million on N.A.T.O. If the military "hardware" is included, this figure would be at least doubled to £440 million. Since box-rooms or bedrooms are being converted into excellent bathrooms for £220, of which half is covered by grant, for one year's military expenditure on B.A.O.R. and N.A.T.O. the Government could provide the grants for 4 million homes. In other words, for this one year's military expenditure in Europe, we could end bathlessness in Britain. I know which would be put first by millions of British people. It is in the interests of the nation and Parliament that there should be another and fuller


debate on the subject at the end of October, and before the Bill appears.

9.35 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) began by striking a note which I think would be echoed by all of us—that we would all at this time of the morning be the better for a bath. We all appreciate the problems involving the bath. Among the many things which my hon. Friend has done in the House, he has devoted himself doggedly, persistently and constructively to improving the standards of houses and insisting—a doctrine not always regarded as one of Marxist purity—that it is important to think not only of the brand new, posh house, but of all the people who have to live in miserable conditions in houses which, as he says, with the best possible slum clearance programme, will last for many years.
I am glad that my hon Friend welcomed the intention of the White Paper and its proposals such as area improvement and amenity grants and the interest-only loans, which is a very practical proposal. I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I concentrate on those points on which we are not completely in agreement. As he said—and it is a perfectly fair point—there is not much point in having a White Paper unless it is discussed. The proposals in the White Paper were put forward with the intention that they should be examined.
I do not find my hon. Friend's attitude puzzling in that I know his views, but I find it very difficult to see in them the clarity which he normally brings to bear on these problems. I found it difficult to discover his attitude to compulsion. I understood what he said about accepting to a certain extent that local authorities should have wider powers of compulsory purchase. That is something which I would expect him to recommend. That means, however, without getting drawn along the paths of his peroration about alternative economies in other fields, that in our work in housing, if we are dealing only with compulsory purchase, there is a limit on the amount which we can spend and the amount of property which can be brought into municipal ownership and be subject to improvement.

My hon. Friend did not consider the problem of what happens to them in terms of cost—who pays for the improvement. This is a difficulty which faces local authorities as well as the private landlord.
My hon. Friend made the point that the compulsory maintenance of property which is in serious disrepair was important. That is dealt with in paragraph 17 of the White Paper. I agree with him. I am sorry to wave a red rag at my hon. Friend at this time of the morning, but, whatever he may say about the recent rent regulation, the evidence is that in securing repairs it has proved far more effective and flexible than the complicated machinery of the earlier Acts, because it means that as soon as the landlord gets slack about repairs it is open to the tenant, on the basis of a change of circumstances, to get a new rent registered and a reduction in rent.
The evidence is that repairs have been much more closely controlled for the regulated tenant than for the old controlled tenant. This is the dilemma. I do not think that one can go very far in telling old controlled landlords that they must keep their property in repair and in pushing them into using the powers in the Act when there is not a rent coming in out of which the repairs can be met. That is what worries me about the present situation. If we are not careful, the whole of the old controlled sector of rented property will slowly sink more and more into disrepair. I ask my hon. Friend to think about this. As a result of our attitude to rents, we are in danger of precipitating precisely the problem which he is so anxious to avoid of more slums being created instead of our being able to maintain the property.
There is not much of a problem with owner-occupiers. There are obviously great advantages in their carrying out these improvements, because it increases the value of the property. In our new proposals for compensation, if they come over the line of unfitness owner-occupiers will get the full market value. The landlord will not get the full market value under the proposals. He will get only the increased, well-maintained, payment. That arrangement is designed specifically for this purpose. Whereas the owner-occupier is living in his home and is


therefore entitled to reasonable compensation, the landlord ought to get increased compensation only if he is keeping the property in good condition.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the criticisms which have been made of the operation of the powers of compulsion under the 1964 Act. We will certainly look at this. This is one of the points which I mentioned on Tuesday. I think that the operation of this Act has been cumbersome. There are too many loopholes in it. I do not think that it will work.
I recognise the force of the argument that, if the landlord is given the incentive of an increased rent if he improves his property and keeps it in repair, we can talk in terms of compulsion; and, where there is no compulsion, we can talk in terms of municipal acquisition.
It is difficult to see how we could work out adequate incentives for landlords of old controlled property to keep it in good repair on an exiguous rent if they have no opportunity of getting a return on the money they will put into it. Landlords can recover a percentage of money spent on improvements. Even if that percentage was increased, I do not see that landlords would get an adequate amount.
We could concentrate on owner-occupied propery for improvement and forget the rest. I would think that that would be a shocking thing to do, because it is precisely in the field of privately rented property that the worst housing conditions and the worst repair conditions exist. I am certain that my hon. Friend and I would agree on that. We could decide that as soon as property comes into regulation it can be dealt with by means of registration and a fair rent applied. This would cover a small proportion of the total amount of privately rented property.
The problem is: do we say, "No compulsion either for tenants or for landlords in the case of privately rented property", which would be a tidy solution to the problem? Do we compel tenants who do not want to pay a higher rent or who for some other reason do not want improvements—some do not, for reasons quite apart from financial ones— or do we leave them and wait until a

change of tenancy, when the property will become a registered tenancy and the problem will solve itself? Or do we try in some way to find a system which is acceptable to deal with the problem of the great mass of old controlled property that still exists?
I know that my hon. Friend wants to find a solution to these problems, as we do. I am glad to have had this opportunity of discussing them. I hope that as a result of our consideration we shall be able to find a solution which is more satisfactory to everyone.

Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Gentlemen who have just joined the all-night sitting that I have from time to time appealed for reasonably brief speeches.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL TRAINING BOARDS

9.45 a.m.

Mr. John Farr: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly respond to your appeal for a brief speech. I merely wish to raise, for a few minutes at this early hour of the morning, the question of industrial training boards set up under the Industrial Training Act, 1964. This subject is worthy of the attention of Members of Parliament, because industrial training boards have flourished and proliferated in the four years since the Act was passed.
There are about 23 different industrial training boards covering a multitude of trades and activities, with many more planned and in the pipeline, such as those for the distribution of food and drink, and the tobacco trade. Another board is envisaged for the footwear, leather and fur skin industries with which, in Leicestershire, I am very much concerned.
These boards do a very good job indeed and are generally welcomed in industry, but so prolific is this Act in spawning these new boards that I think it is a useful subject for a debate of this nature. Some of these boards are definitely not fulfilling a need in the country and are not wanted. I can give one or two examples of boards which have been rejected by the industries for which they were originally set up.
One is the Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board. Not long ago we had a debate about this


board, which met with a great deal of objection by hon. Members who quoted the views of some of their constituents. It was felt that there was a good deal of unfairness because, whilst everybody would have to pay the levy, there would be large numbers of isolated farmers and small farmers in certain parts of the country who would be unable to get full benefit from any training schemes which the board put forward. That board has met with a great deal of hostility. 1 think that probably in the years to come it will be a good thing if it is abolished. Perhaps a strengthened system of local training could be re-established in the counties through the agricultural institutes and local colleges which still serve that purpose.
There are one or two other points I wish to raise concerning industrial training boards. One is the line of demarcation between the boards which have been and are about to be set up. So prolific has this Act been in spawning 23 new industrial training boards that it is becoming increasingly difficult to draw a line of demarcation between the activities of one board and another.
I will give the House an example from an Order, published on 15th May this year, relating to the activities of the Paper and Paper Products Industrial Training Boad. There are so many industrial training boards that each new Order defining the responsibilities for which a new board has been set up it becoming more and more complex. In this Order there are pages of schedules describing the activities for which the Paper and Paper Products Industrial Training Board is responsible and those for which it is not, inferring that some of the other activities will be the responsibility of the Printing and Publishing Industrial Training Board.
In this Order it has been found necessary to lay down in the minutest detail the responsibilities of the Board. For instance, it says,
'Carnival novelties' means carnival hats or caps, carnival noise makers, crackers, folly sticks or favours, fancy paper costumes, confetti, paper garlands, masks, streamers or similar products.
It will be seen from that that the Board's responsibilities have been set out in great detail so that the various boards do not come into conflict with one another over

their differing responsibilities for different sections of industry.
As I interpret the 1964 Act, there is no limit to the number of boards which can be established. All that is necessary is for the Minister to consider that a certain industry should have an industrial training board, and after sounding out the employers and employees in the industry concerned, and other representatives, he can establish a board with or without the consent of those whom he has consulted.
I am certain that in most cases in which the Minister has had consultations he has enjoyed the support of responsible employers and employees, but it seems to me that some of the boards which have been set up deal with the most detailed matters which could just as well be dealt with by a more embracing board which could perhaps charge a smaller percentage rate of levy and cover more activities of an allied nature.
For instance, why has it been necessary to set up separate boards for the water supply industry, for the carpet industry, for cotton and allied textiles, for wool, jute and flax, and so on? Each of these new boards needs a new chairman, and new salaried staff. The wool, jute and flax industry training board has between 50 and 60 employees who must be paid out of the levy imposed on the industry. I think that more embracing boards could be set up to deal with a number of allied trades, and thus avoid this proliferation of boards which, as far as I can see, can be brought into being at will.
As the Minister knows, we have had a great deal of correspondence about the wool, jute and flax industrial training board, and I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the courteous and detailed way in which he has answered the many questions which I have put to him about this board. He was good enough to try to settle for me some legitimate inquiries that I had relating to the activities of the Wool, Jute and Flax Industrial Training Board in Leicestershire. He was unable to help me with this problem and eventually my constituent said to me, "Look here, the Minister is obviously trying to help us with this problem, and so are you. The Minister has said that he is more or less powerless to do anything. We cannot wait any longer. This is costing us


thousands of pounds annually in money we spend on the levy and do not receive back in training fees. Please send it to the Parliamentary Commissioner and give the file to him".
I did not want to do that without giving the Minister a further opportunity to consider the matter, but he eventually replied saying that he was powerless to do anything, so I sent the whole file to the Parliamentary Commissioner. Why is the Parliamentary Commissioner forbidden to investigate the activities of industrial training boards? About 23 have already been established, with half a dozen or a dozen more in the pipeline. Goodness knows how many more are coming. Yet the Parliamentary Commissioner returned the file to me a few days after I had sent it to him with a letter, written on 4th of this month, saying that
Under Section 5(1) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act I may investigate action taken in the exercise of administrative functions of departments and authorities listed in Schedule 2 to the Act. The Industrial Training Board are not listed in that Schedule and their actions are not subject to my investigation.
At this early hour on a Thursday morning I ask why the industrial training boards are privileged in this manner. Is there something sacrosanct about them? Why should not they be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner? Will the hon. Member assure me that the relevant Schedule will be amended to give the Parliamentary Commissioner powers to investigate these difficulties which arise?

Mr. Peter Mahon: The hon. Member is speaking in very scathing terms of these industrial training boards. I can assure him that in my constituency those remarks would be absolutely undeserved, because many of my constituents who have been on the industrial scrapheap for years and years benefit from these boards being developed along the lines they are. There are imperfections, but by and large there will be great improvements as time goes by. Some of the hon. Member's criticisms are positively unfair.

Mr. Fair: I am interested to hear what the hon. Member has to say. I ask him to be as courteous to me as he normally is, and to listen to my complaint —because the Minister knows better than to interrupt me in that manner, as he

knows that there are certain injustices in the operations of these boards. I have letters from him saying that there are inequalities of operation. There are cases where one firm is penalised to the benefit of another. He recognises that that is so. I am not going to produce my files for the benefit of the hon. Member, but I ask him to wait until I have concluded, when no doubt he will have an opportunity to join in the fun.
The Parliamentary Commissioner is not empowered to investigate the operations of industrial training boards. What worried me was the fact that he went on to say, in his letter of 4th July:
The Ministry of Labour (now the Department of Employment and Productivity) is listed in Schedule 2, but the only action open to the Minister is to make an Order implementing proposals, submitted by the Board, to amend the present levy arrangements. There is therefore no administrative action open to the Minister which I can investigate.
With that letter the Parliamentary Commissioner returned the file that I had forwarded with my letter to him concerning a firm in Leicestershire engaged in the woollen industry.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the centre of the wool, jute and flax industry is in Yorkshire, and that the centre in Yorkshire is Bradford As he may probably know, Bradford is a goodish step from Leicestershire and there are difficulties for isolated firms, like two in my constituency, which are engaged in activities under the auspices of the Wool, Jute and Flax Industry Training Board—firms that are hundreds of miles from the main centre of that industry's activities.
As the Minister has recognised, the firms face peculiar problems, and I had hoped that he would ask the Training Board to make amendments to help this particular firm I have in mind. This firm, and others like it, has a very stable labour force, as one would expect, because it is difficult for employees skilled in this trade to get another job in the locality—the jobs are not available. To change their jobs employees would have to go to Yorkshire, which is not very likely. Further, this firm—F. Forsell & Son Ltd., of South Wigston—is renowned as a good employer, with its own good training scheme which has been operating for many years. It has, as I say, enjoyed


a stable labour force, with an annual turnover of considerably less than 20 per cent.
This case concerned me because, obviously, firms away from the main centre of activity of the particular trade have great difficulty in benefiting from any centrally run scheme of training. The hon. Gentleman will accept that in Bradford, the centre of the woollen industry, certain evening classes are arranged which it would be quite impracticable for employees in the industry in Leicestershire to attend.
My reason for raising this question now is to ask the Minister once again to accept that in Leicestershire this firm is paying a much higher rate of levy per capita because of the much higher rate of wages paid in the East Midlands and in Leicestershire generally, but that in return for that much higher rate of levy per capita it is unable to enjoy the equivalent training facilities available in the centre of the industry.
The Minister shook his head a moment ago when I said that the levy was costing this firm, which is engaged in the export trade, thousands of pounds a year, but the fact is that this year, out of a payment of £3,456 in levy the firm is receiving only £800 a year in training grant. One of the letters from the Minister which decided me to raise the point on this occasion contained the following passage:
The Board of course pays grant for training in a wide range of occupations, including management, supervisory, administrative, technician, commercial and clerical, and it may be that your constituents are overlooking possible claims for training in these areas that might help to correct the imbalance.
This firm does not want to find excuses for training. All it wants is the right assessment of levy and to be allowed to continue its present very efficient training system without this very heavy financial burden.

10.5 a.m.

The Under Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): The hon. Member for Har-borough (Mr. Farr), naturally and perhaps inevitably, began by speaking about the gensral situation of industrial training boards. I shall spend at least two minutes making comments about that before I tarn to the specific case he raised. I am sure that the hon. Member will not want me to comment, nor expect me to comment, on the desirability and possi-

bility of changing the laws which govern the conduct of the Ombudsman so that part of the responsibilities which I bear should come under his aegis. The hon. Member explained why industrial training boards are not properly the concern of the Ombudsman, and why he returned the papers to the hon. Member, so I need not do that again. The hon. Member will understand that the facts outlined to him are concerned with the nature of industrial training boards, their semi-autonomous condition, the way they were organised and intended to be organised as a result of the 1964 Act. His party was responsible for the Act and deserves credit rather than blame for it.
It is inevitable that the boards should be so organised that they are and are seen to be representative of their industries. They are not run from Whitehall or from Westminster. They are not organised by the Government or by the Civil Service. They are controlled and their decisions are taken by men and women who work in the individual industries, who can speak for the individual industries and have experience in those industries. In my view, it would not be conducive to good industrial training if those boards were subject to detailed control by the Government or were run by Whitehall. They are the industries' own boards representing individual industries, spending those industries' money and doing a job for the industries.
If one is to create that situation and to create the confidence which most industries have in each of the training boards, one needs to create boards which are representative of the industries for which by size and structure they can speak and represent. The hon. Member asked me why there should be a training board for water supply, for the manufacture of carpets and for the wool, jute and flax industry. Why should they not all be amalgamated so that they could have common administrative costs, offices and personnel?
The answer must surely be that training in water supply, the production of carpets and the manufacture of woollen products are not the same. Secondly, we could not convince the employers and employees in water supply or carpet manufacture that their industrial interests could be represented if they were part of one amorphous board the majority of


whose members did not speak for their industry but for some other.

Mr. Farr: The hon. Gentleman has rather misquoted me. I suggested that perhaps allied or similar trades should be associated in one board. It is not fair to say that training for water supply and carpet manufacture is at all similar.

Mr. Hattersley: I am sorry, and I take the hon. Member's point that he meant areas of more common concern and more similar occupations.
The answer is the same, although, in the manufacture of carpets and in the wool, jute and flax industry, there are similar facilities and, as a result, the textile boards come together from time to time to take common decisions about training. I have said to the House, and on occasion to an industry, "This is your board, doing the job you want done. It is necessary to have boards representing individual industries and speaking for them."
It was the intention of the party which brought in the Act in May, 1964, and I know it is the intention of the Opposition as it is ours, that virtually all industry, with 16 million employees, should eventually be covered by industrial training boards. The boards have flourished and should continue to flourish and to extend until they cover all areas where training may be important and training quality may be increased and quantity extended, where training costs may be more fairly and equally shared. Those are the objectives of the Act which I believe, the Government believe, and our predecessors believed, should be extended to all industry, but they can be run successfully only if they are accepted by the industries. I have said in the almost continual debates we have had about the Agricultural Training Board that I share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member and his hon. Friends for that board working in harmony and in harness with the agricultural industry.
I reject the suggestion that the industry does not want the Board. The N.F.U. asked my right hon. Friend for it. In the last six months the union has worked closely with the Board to work out a scheme for training and payment for training which it believes is acceptable to the majority of people in the industry.

I hope to see the N.F.U. this week. I understand that when the county branches of the union were polled recently, a substantial number of them were in favour of the Board and the proposals drawn up by the N.F.U.
The hon. Gentleman asked how, with so many boards, the line would be drawn between where the activities of one board ended and another began. There should be three considerations governing this matter. First, the board should cover an industry or industrial group—for example, engineering and iron and steel are not single industries—in which there are similar occupations or training needs. Secondly, the board should be large enough to enjoy economies of scale. I refer to the administrative economies to be derived from a large body. Thirdly, the board should be small enough not to become remote from the industry.
These are the sort of principles which we have tried to apply during the detailed negotiations leading up to the creation of every board. The discussions have been detailed and protracted so that all concerned, employees and employers, could go into every definition of the scope of the boards. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend or the then Minister of Labour had the most detailed discussions with industry to ensure that there are no anomalies.
But the real question which the hon. Gentleman has asked, directly or by implication, is whether some industries or firms, because of their size, geography or character, should not be obliged to pay the industrial training levy or should pay a smaller levy and, therefore, not have any provision made for them by the training boards. Of the many points that could be made in answer to this question, I will give four.
First, there are no occupations for which training is inappropriate. It is as important for labourers as it is for craftsmen. Secondly, we accept that some firms, by their size or remoteness, find training difficult to organise. That does not mean that they do not need it. Thirdly, it is wrong to say—as the hon. Gentleman said and the firm to which he referred has said—that because there is a stable labour force in a company, training is not required. One of the objects of the Act is to make people recognise that even a stable labour force needs


training because techniques, technology and production methods change. A man who has been employed with the same company for 10 or 30 years may need to be retrained to meet a new task which his firm wishes to put on him.
Fourthly, I appreciate that even within these general principles there are individual difficulties. However, these difficulties will not be overcome by applying rules to a training board which might erode and disturb the general training in the industry concerned. The Wool, Jute and Flax Board knows that there are companies with specific difficulties which might claim that the Act operates inequitably on them.
No board has been more anxious to avoid that sort of thing than the Wool, Jute and Flax Board. It runs seven differential levies which are supposed to help, and do help, to mitigate the problem. But knowing the problems of static labour forces and the problems of the occasional remote firm, the Board is even now looking to see whether any further amelioration can be made. The decision must be the Board's, for it is the industry's board, not the Minister's creature But it is aware of the problem and is looking at it. It hopes that it can meet and do so in a way which is consistent with the standards and principles in the extension of industrial training now being undertaken by the 23 boards to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: Mr. Speaker—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put,put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT (REDUNDANCY FUND)

Redundancy Fund (Advances out of the National Loans Fund) (No. 2) Order 1968, [draft laid before the House 16th July] approved.—[Mr. Hattersley.]

Orders of the Day — HOSPITAL, OUNDLE (CLOSURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

10.16 a.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I in no way begrudge that this debate comes at the end of an all-night sitting. It was worth waiting for, and I think it right that we should have it. In 19 years as a Member of Parliament and 15 years as a local councillor, I have never had such a spontaneous and sincere reaction from local residents as I have had following the suggestion to close the Glapthorne. Road Hospital at Oundle in my constituency. I have to say that there is no question of attributing malice or carelessness to the regional hospital board from any of my sources. Nor has there been any suggestion of a lack of regard by the authorities for the needs of the area. That is not the point.
This is a case of local opinion, representing the social strata of the area through all its gradations, genuinely feeling that its judgment of the matter is better based than is the judgment of the regional hospital board. Because of the intense and fair-minded way in which the representations have been made to me, I feel it my duty to suggest to the Minister that he would be doing his duty if he used any powers which he may have in a way that will prevent any precipitate action being taken in regard to the closure of this hospital.
The Minister may well be aware of some of the feeling which has been engendered in the district. There has been a petition signed by 1,900 residents; it was sent in by a minister of the Church and it was got together quite spontaneously. I have had representations from many organisations of real authority and standing—The Oundle and District Care Committee, the Thrapston Rural District Council, the Oundle


Urban District Council, the Nassington Parish Council, the King's Cliffe Parish Council, the Yarwell Parish Council, the Easton-on-the-Hill Parish Council, the Aldwincle Parish Council.
In addition to those official bodies, pretty well all the local branches of the County Women's Institute have sent in their protests and asked me to forward them to the Minister. I have had protests and objections from the Roman Catholic, Church of England, Methodist and Congregational ministers in Oundle and district. I have had representations from the Oundle branch of the British Legion. Four local doctors have written to me in some detail putting points from their specialised knowledge.
Those are only a few of the organisations and innumerable local residents who have added their voice in spontaneous reaction to the suggestion that the hospital should be closed. That is a formidable representation, worthy of the time and attention not only of the House, in the form of this debate, but of the Minister and his Department.
The view of the four doctors is especially worthy of mention, and it is quite clear. They say that the closure of the hospital will cause great hardship to the elderly patients and their relatives, and that neither Wellingborough nor Kettering, where alternative hospital beds might be made available, is easy to visit. Visiting would involve a journey of from 16 to 20 miles and would mean spending pretty well the whole day getting there and back because we have only a very inadequate bus service in the area, because of the poor demand for it for normal use, and the local railway line has been closed. Not everyone has a car or can find a friend to take them on these essential journeys. The result would be virtually to separate the sick from their relatives and friends at a time when frequent and easy visiting is of great importance.
The doctors say that they believe that instead of being close this Oundle hospital could be used to relieve the pressure on the district general hospitals at Peterborough and Kettering. As well as taking care of selected geriatric patients it could take convalescent patients who no longer require complicated care and treatment from these

hospitals. The doctors say that older patients who need complicated investigation or treatment could go to St. Mary's Hospital in Kettering first and then return to Oundle, where they would be near their relatives. Simple pathological investigation could be done by the Kettering laboratory, as it is at present, and the use of the domiciliary portable X-ray unit could cover the need for chest X-rays or X-rays for suspected fractures. The hospital could be run by the local general practitioners under the supervision of a visiting consultant.
These are constructive suggestions for economic and sensible ways in which the hospital could be put to even better use. If Kettering hospital does not wish to continue the supervision it could be done from Peterborough, that is only 12 miles away, and with Peterborough there is a good bus service. This is a constructive alternative which the Minister could and should take into account.
The doctors are convinced that with this sort of reorganisation the hospital could continue to serve their community at no extra expense to the National Health Service. They would be able to integrate their work with that of the district general hospitals, to the benefit of both patients and the staff involved. These medical men have told me that on the grounds I have set out they earnestly beg the Minister and the regional hospital board to reconsider the decision to close the hospital. Closing it would not save a great deal of money, and would cause much hardship to the people of Oundle and the surrounding scattered villages. It would remove a service that would not be replaced by any of the suggested alternatives. That is the view of the doctors practising locally, and there is no better authority to form a judgment on such a matter.
I can summarise the views of the lay organisations that have been in touch with me very briefly. They say that the hospital has given good service and is still capable of giving it to the elderly and chronic sick of both sexes, particularly those who need nurses but do not need a great deal of medical attention. The lay people make the point very strongly, because it is within their experience that this is the fact. The hospital is at present well served by a competent day and night staff, and it


is the only institution of its kind in the area of Northamptonshire north east of Kettering.
The local residents believe that if it is closed patients can be accommodated only in Kettering or Wellingborough, which would mean the long journeys to which I have referred, and the transport facilities are inadequate. It would mean, they say, that the relatives and friends of patients who are dependent upon public transport would be prevented from paying the number of visits which would be normal and helpful to the patients. They argue—and I pass it on with all the support I can give—that it is well to bear in mind in cases such as these that not only are the patients elderly and infirm but often the relatives and friends who would want to visit them are old and infirm, and the lack of facilities for frequent visiting is not only a severe hardship but can be a grave setback to the well-being of the patients. On these grounds alone they claim that there is a strong case for the reversal of the reported decision to close the hospital.
Further, they make the pertinent point that beds are just not available at the moment in the hospitals in the area for geriatric patients, and such patients, far from being sent to Kettering and Peterborough, are actually coming from those areas back to the Glapthorn Road Hospital.
I should like to make my constituents' point clear to the Minister. It is agreed that the Part III accommodation of the building, which is old and outmoded, should be demolished, but the geriatric hospital, built in 1901, which stands in a quiet part of the countryside, should be retained, and it is this section only to which the whole of their arguments for retention are directed. They claim —I support them—that in terms of economy so much money has been spent on the hospital in recent years that it would be improvident now to allow it to go out of use when merely by a little more capital expenditure vast improvements could be made and the hospital could be part of a system in the area which would be of general benefit.
On the question of staffing, it would be a great pity to dispense with the capable staff at the hospital, many of whom are employed on a part-time basis

because they live in the area and alternative vocational outlets in Oundle are very limited.
I believe that my constituents have submitted an outstanding case which justifies the Minister's looking with care and sympathy into their suggestions and avoiding the closure. If he can prevent the closure being carried out I am certain that he will be doing a service to the general Health Service for which he is responsible, and he will be recognising the authority with which the local doctors and residents speak.

10.28 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): It may be helpful if, first, I explain the background of the proposal to close Glapthorn Road Hospital.
I have known the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) for many years and very much admire the care with which he looks after the interests of his constituents. I am sure that after an all-night sitting he and I can think of places where we might prefer to be. We have travelled abroad a great deal.
In explaining the background position it is, first of all, important to get clear that the hospital is a former Public Assistance institution and since the appointed day it has been a joint-user establishment owned and maintained by the Northamptonshire County Council. The council provides residential accommodation for 44 people, and the Kettering Hospital Management Committee has the use of 60 beds for long-stay patients, although it is currently using only 50 of them.
At discussions between the county council and the Oxford Regional Hospital Board the council has indicated its intention to replace its residential accommodation at Glapthorn Road Hospital with new welfare homes, and to this end it will gradually withdraw its patients from the hospital. With the planned withdrawal of the county council, the regional hospital board is now considering the future of the hospital accommodation. This is distinct from the county council's responsibility.
I would like to deal with the local authority's future plans. It is my right hon. Friend's policy, as it has been of successive Ministers, to close former Public Assistance institutions—the "place


on the hill", as they are euphemistically known. Closure has been going on for a number of years all over the country and we should like to see the remaining ones go before the end of the 1970s.
The Northamptonshire County Council's Welfare Committee has produced plans for the closure of its former Public Assistance institutions which we approve. It is proposed that, by 1974, the last of these old workhouses, namely, Glapthorn Road Hospital, will have been replaced by modern homes suitable to the needs of the elderly who require the care and the accommodation which will be provided there. There should be no doubt as to the need to get rid of these outmoded places and bring old people more within the community, in consonance with the modern approach to the care of old people. This is why we and the county council want to design well-designed, small, modern houses to bring these people into the community and give them the greatest possible comfort. The hon. Gentleman and I are at one on this need.
Unlike a number of areas, that of the Kettering Hospital Management Committee has no deficiency of geriatric beds. There are sufficient beds in total to meet the estimated needs of the present population over 65 and the projected population in 1981, the year which we are using for intermediate planning purposes. The regional board accepts that many available beds, however, including those at Glapthorn Road, are not up to an acceptable standard. They have plans for the development of the geriatric services in the Kettering Group on modern lines. Acute assessment beds for geriatric patients already exist at St. Mary's Hospital.
My experience since I have held this office is that one must find the true balance and desirability as between modern care of old people and the convenience of their families. This is not a clear-cut issue, but I have taken the hon. Gentleman's point about visiting and keeping these old people in touch with their families.
The completion of Phase II of the new Kettering District General Hospital, which is at an advanced stage of planning, will provide a new geriatric unit,

which will, of course, be supported by all the modern facilities of a district general hospital. It is by no means certain that an old person having once been taken into a geriatric ward cannot, with modern science and treatment and assessment, come back fully into the community. In addition, there will be a new geriatric day hospital in Kettering this year. A further day hospital will also be built in Wellingborough in 1970.
Modern medical practice is directed to preventing the patient from becoming institutionalised and to achieve this, supporting rehabilitation services, which are wholly lacking in many long-stay hospitals, are needed. With this more active approach, we can expect the number of beds required to be considerably reduced.
This brings me to the economy in the use of hospital resources. It is the Minister's policy to encourage the closure of these hospital buildings and services which will not be required as part of a modernised and rationalised hospital service. A number of closures have taken place as the hospital building programme has progressed. The accelerating numbers of new hospital building, the continuing pressure on needs upon revenue and the increasing cost of running new hospitals has meant that it has become essential to carry out a thorough-going review of all existing services and my right hon. Friend recently asked hospital boards to do that review. The Oxford Regional Board, which has responsibility here, has, I am glad to say, responded wholeheartedly to the Minister's request.
This, therefore, is the background against which the regional board has been considering its present commitment at Glapthorn Road Hospital, from which the local authority has announced its intention to withdraw in about six years. There are, of course, obvious difficulties. Oundle is 17 miles from Kettering and those patients and their relatives who come from Oundle itself and the immediate vicinity naturally wish to see the hospital retained. Those whose homes are further from Oundle may be as conveniently served by hospitals in Kettering or Wellingborough and the second group, is, I understand, the larger of the two.
Then there is the question of the future medical care of patients in this area, to which I referred, and the many economic factors which should be assessed if this old building, which would serve a very limited purpose, were to be retained, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, by the regional board. These are some of the facts of the situation which the board has to weigh in reaching a conclusion.
I am well aware—this happens in my own constituency—of the affection and attachment which local residents have for their local hospital and I know that, in this case, many individuals have come forward to support the case for retaining the hospital. I agree that the hon. Gentleman produced an impressive list of organisations and individuals, in cluding doctors, to support his case. I can assure him that the regional board is having consultations with all local interests most conscientiously. As he is no doubt aware, as part of this process senior officials of the board attended a public meeting in Oundle in the last week and the board will certainly take full account of the views expressed by local residents.
When the board has reached a conclusion, it will make a recommendation to my right hon. Friend, at which stage the Minister will personally consider the case, as he does all other cases of hospital closures, and will take into account not only the representations of the regional board, but also those made directly to him and the views expressed here today, before he reaches a decision.
I have tried to put over to the hon. Gentleman that there are always conflicts of interests here, whether an economic conflict between the regional board, dependent as it is on the Government for finance, and the views of local residents, who, for sentimental and certainly some practical reasons, think that the present proposal is undesirable. We will keep this in mind and, before any decision is taken, I will have a discussion with the hon. Gentleman to explore the situation generally. He has done a useful service in raising this matter and no doubt his constituents will be well pleased with what he has done.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock a.m.